Pesticide Report 2015

FROM CROP TO TABLE
PESTICIDE REPORT
FOOD SAFETY & SUSTAINABILITY CENTER
Pesticide Report
About Consumer Reports’ Food Work
and Its Food Safety and Sustainability Center
Consumer Reports has been concerned about the quality and safety of
the food supply since its earliest years. It did pioneering research on the presence
of nuclear fallout in the American diet (Strontium-90) in the 1950s and 1960s,
which helped build support for the Test Ban Treaty of 1963. The magazine’s 1974
landmark series on water pollution played a role in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The organization has been testing meat and poultry for pathogens and antibiotic
resistance for more than 15 years and has used its research to successfully fight
for reforms such as the 2010 campylobacter standard for chicken and turkey,
the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act, and improvements to the salmonella
standards. In 2012, Consumer Reports launched its Food Safety and Sustainability Center
to fight for sweeping, systemic change and address the root causes of problems
plaguing the food system. The Center’s work focuses on issues including foodborne illness and antibiotic resistance; pesticide use; heavy metals (mercury,
lead, arsenic); truth and transparency in labeling; and promoting more sustainable agricultural practices that advance the marketplace, such as animal welfare,
organic farming, and fair trade. At the core of the Center’s work is the principle
that there is a clear intersection between how food is produced and the impact on
public health.
About the Food Center
CR Scientists
Dr. Urvashi Rangan leads Consumer Reports’ Consumer
Safety and Sustainability Group
and serves as the Executive
Director of its Food Safety
and Sustainability Center. Dr.
Rangan directs all of the organization’s food-safety testing and
research in addition to the scientific risk assessments related to
food and product safety, which
she translates into actionable
recommendations for lawmakers and consumers. She is an
environmental health scientist
and toxicologist and is a leading
expert, watchdog, and spokesperson on food labeling and
food safety. Dr. Rangan received
her Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
Charlotte Vallaeys is a senior
policy analyst and writer for the
Consumer Reports’ Food Safety
and Sustainability Center. She
focuses on sustainability and
justice in the food system and
works on a variety of food policy
and food safety issues, including
food labeling and organic policy.
She regularly attends National
Organic Standards Board
meetings as a watchdog for the
organic label and has done work
for the National Organic Coalition. She previously worked as
Policy Director at The Cornucopia Institute. She received her
master’s degree in theological
studies from Harvard University, where she studied social
and environmental ethics, and a
master’s of science in nutrition
from the Friedman School of
Nutrition Science and Policy at
Tufts University.
Dr. Doris Sullivan is the Associate
Director for Product Safety in
Consumer Reports’ Consumer
Safety and Sustainability Group.
She oversees product safety testing, research, and prioritization.
She is also an expert in compiling and analyzing large datasets. She received her Ph.D. in
chemistry from Boston University and completed postdoctoral
research at the Free University
of Brussels and University of
Pennsylvania. Dr. Michael K. Hansen is a Senior
Scientist with Consumers Union,
the policy and advocacy arm of
Consumer Reports. He works
primarily on food safety issues,
including pesticides, and has
been largely responsible for
developing the organization’s
positions on the safety, testing and labeling of genetically
engineered food and mad cow
disease. Dr. Hansen served on
the Department of Agriculture’s
Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology from
1998 to 2002 and on the California Department of Food and
Agriculture Food Biotechnology
Advisory Committee from 2001
to 2002. Dr. Keith Newsom-Stewart is a
Statistical Program Leader at
Consumer Reports. During his
tenure, he has worked on a wide
range of projects, including
those related to meat, seafood,
and poultry safety and food
additives. He specializes in
linear and nonlinear mixed
models, experimental design,
and analysis of complex surveys. Prior to coming to CR, he
worked for the Cornell Biometrics Unit and College of Veterinary Medicine. His educational
background is in statistics,
general biology, and genetics.
He is an adjunct math professor at Western Connecticut
State University and a member
of the American Statistical
Association. CR Communications
Jennifer Shecter is the Director
of External Relations at Consumer Reports and the Senior
Adviser to the Food Safety
and Sustainability Center. In
this capacity, she manages
the center’s partnerships and
relationships, coordinates its
overall public service activities,
and pursues strategic initiatives
to build support for its mission.
She has been with Consumer
Reports for more than a decade,
serving first in its Communications Department, promoting
food and product safety issues,
then working as the Senior
Adviser to the President—writing speeches, op-eds, and briefing materials—and advising on
key organizational issues. CR Advisers
Dr. Charles Benbrook consulted
to Consumer Reports on this
pesticide report, including
providing expert analysis of his
Dietary Risk Index (DRI). Over
a long career, Dr. Benbrook has
developed a variety of analytical
systems quantifying food quality and safety, and the impacts
of agricultural technology and
policy. Before moving west, Dr.
Benbrook worked in Washington, D.C., for 18 years, including
in the Executive Office of the
President and on Capitol Hill.
He collaborated with Consumer
Reports on the organization’s
1998 Worst First pesticides
report. He currently serves as
head of Benbrook Consulting
Services.
Chantelle Norton is an artist and
designer and is a lead designer
of Consumer Reports’ Food
Safety and Sustainability Center
reports. She has worked in many
fields of design, from fashion
to print to costume to graphic
design. She lives in the Lower
Hudson Valley with a medley
of animals, including her pet
chickens. Her latest paintings
take the chicken as muse and
feature portraits of her feathered friends in landscapes
inspired by the Hudson Valley
and Ireland.
We acknowledge the contribution from current adviser,
Aimee Simpson, JD.
Contents
Introduction: Produce Matters �� 5
The Intersection of Safety and Sustainability: Why Pesticides Are a Bad Deal�� 6
Pesticides Used Before and After Cultivation�� 7
Human Health Concerns�� 9
Weighing Human Health in Pesticide Approvals�� 9
Pesticide Terminology�� 11
Risks to Young Children�� 12
Organophosphate Pesticides�� 13
Food Quality Protection Act�� 14
Risks to Farmers and Farmworkers�� 16
Environmental and Ecological Concerns�� 22
Honeybees and Pollination�� 22
The Impacts of Pesticide Use�� 24
Why Organic is the Right Way�� 25
Genetically Engineered Crops and Increased Pestide Use�� 26
Reducing Exposure to Pesticides: What Consumers Can Do�� 27
A Consumer Reports Guide to Residue Risk�� 28
Calculation of the Dietary Risk Index DRI�� 29
Comparing Consumer Reports Guide with the Environmental Working Group's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides
in Produce�� 31
Calculation of Cancer Risk in CR Guide�� 31
Fruit Risks Chart�� 34
Vegetables Risks Chart�� 35
High Risk Pesticides�� 37
Labels Guide Chart�� 38
Stretching Your Produce and Organic Dollar�� 43
Cleaning Produce�� 44
Conclusion�� 45
Consumer Reports’ Food Safety and Sustainability Center’s Pesticide Policy Recommendations�� 46
References�� 49
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center
Introduction:
Produce Matters
F
ruits and vegetables are a crucial part of a
healthy diet. In 2015, a report on government
dietary guidelines concluded that high levels of
fruit and vegetable consumption are strongly
or moderately associated with decreased risks
of chronic diseases such as heart disease, high
blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, obesity and
cancer. The report also cites emerging evidence
that suggests that dietary patterns with high
fruit and vegetable consumption may decrease
the likelihood of congenital anomalies as well as
neurological and psychological diseases.
Unfortunately, Americans eat far too few fruits
and vegetables. In fact, 80 percent of Americans
fail to consume the daily recommended number
of servings of fruit (1.5 to 2.5 cups for adults), and
90 percent fail to meet the daily recommended
number of servings of vegetables (2 to 3.5 cups
for adults). That means we are not even close
to what some studies suggest may be the ideal
number of servings of fruits and vegetables per
day: 7 or more.1 One simple thing you can do to
be healthier and live longer is to eat a diet rich in
fruits and vegetables.
Unfortunately, not all produce is created equal,
and a key part of understanding the health of
the produce we eat is to understand how it is
produced. Since the industrial revolution, chemical-based pesticides have been used extensively
in crop production. Farmers use nearly 700
million pounds of pesticides every year.2
We have come to learn that the widespread
use of pesticides in crop production comes with
a range of consequences that should affect our
thinking on how crops should be produced. It
also highlights the connections between practices on the farm and what ends up on our table.
In an ideal world, pesticides sprayed on a farm
field would kill only the targeted pests, then
disappear. That, unfortunately, is not the case.
Pesticides can harm their intended targets as
well as nontargeted living organisms. Pesticides
used in agriculture can contaminate not only
our food but also the environment, and they’re
widely present in the air, rain, and rivers. Their
use affects not only the consumers who eat the
treated crops but also farmworkers, rural residents, wildlife, and pollinators that are exposed.
The good news is that over the past two
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 5
decades, there has been quite a
bit of progress addressing the
use of some of the most toxic
pesticides we initially called
out in our 1998 report, Worst
First. That report identified
40 specific insecticide uses on
nine fruit and vegetable crops
that, together, accounted for a
very large portion of children's
overall dietary insecticide
exposure and risk. But more
work needs to be done so that
we can maximize the benefits
of eating produce, making our
produce choices even healthier.
We also know from a Consumer Reports April 2014
national survey that consumers
expect more when shopping
for food. Eighty-nine percent
of people think it is critical
to protect the environment
from chemicals. In addition,
86 percent think it is critical to
reduce pesticide exposure and
support fair working conditions.3 Those statistics indicate
an overwhelming consumer
demand for food produced in
a way that is more sustainable
and healthier for the environment, workers, and consumers.
This report discusses the
range of issues associated with
chemicals used to grow and
market the majority of fruits
and vegetables in the U.S. It
also takes a close look at the
specific risks of individual
crops, including where and how
they are produced. We describe
the effects of these chemicals on the environment and
human health, and the importance of decreasing our use
and exposure to these pesticides. We also discuss emerging
science on the potential harms
that can’t be quantified at this
time but, again, can guide us
to make better decisions from
crop to table.
Ideally you wouldn’t have
to worry about the potential
hazards associated with pesticide use in fruit and vegetable
production. We offer important
recommendations for systemic
policy changes that would
better protect public health, but
until that happens, we provide
you with advice on how to
reduce your exposure.
In our judgment, the best way
to maximize the nutritional
benefit from fruits and vegetables while minimizing the
negative effects of pesticides on
the health of the environment,
workers, and yourself is to buy
organic. Federal law requires
that food labeled as “organic”
must be grown and handled
without the use of synthetic
chemicals, including synthetic
pesticides, with very few exceptions.4 Studies have shown
that people who eat organic
fruits and vegetables reduce
their exposure to pesticide
residues. 5-7
We do recognize that organic
can cost more, and organic
options may not always be
available to all consumers, so
we give you advice on how
to find nonorganic produce
items with the lowest levels of
harmful pesticides. We also
underscore that even eating
conventionally produced fruits and
vegetables is always healthier than
not eating any. This report seeks
to empower you, so you can
make more informed decisions
about the produce you eat and
the policies that have an impact
on their production. Together,
we believe we can create a
healthier food system. 
The Intersection of Safety and Sustainability:
Why Pesticides Are a Bad Deal
W
hen chemical pesticides
became widely available
in the mid-20th century, the
dominant approach to pest
control in agriculture shifted.
Farming practices that naturally prevent and control
serious pest problems, such as
rotating crops, planting cover
crops, providing habitat for
pest predators, maintaining
diversity on the farm, selecting crops suited for particular
6 Pesticide Report March 2015
growing conditions and
regions, scouting for pests,
and labor-intensive weeding,
fell out of favor. Farmers
no longer needed to rely on
those farming practices. They
could plant vast fields of single
crops—monoculture—and
focus on exterminating pests
through chemical means.
The chemical approach to
pest control, however, has
backfired. It has been shown
to be unsustainable because
it ignores a basic reality that
governs the natural world:
adaptation. Within a decade,
many pests will adapt and
develop resistance to the pesticides designed to kill them.8
The National Academy of
Sciences writes that “pesticide
resistance is now universal
across taxa.”9 It typically takes
less than a decade for insects
to develop resistance to an
insecticide, sometimes as few
as three to four years.10
The constant and inevitable
evolution of resistance and
the resulting need to develop
and apply new chemicals has
put farmers on what has been
referred to as a “pesticide
treadmill.” That continued
use and development of new
pesticides comes at the expense
of public health and the environment, which requires longterm testing and caution for
maximum protection. Living
organisms are complex, and it
takes time to come to a thorough understanding of the
often subtle ways that pesticides do harm. It was only after
it was banned that the carcinogenic effects of DDT, and its
effects on the endocrine system,
became clear. As history shows,
specific pesticides are approved,
and millions of pounds are
released into our environment and food supply, before
scientists have thoroughly
researched and understood
their wide-ranging and longterm effects. We cannot assume
that the safety tests required
today will capture the full
spectrum of negative effects
and adequately protect us from
those harmful effects.11, 12
Meanwhile, the long-term
negative effects of pesticides on
nontarget organisms—including humans—can linger longer
than their effectiveness against
the pests they are intended to
kill. We are still living with
the consequences of the pesticides that were used generations ago. Though inorganic
arsenic-based pesticides were
popular in the early 20th
century and are no longer used
(they were banned in the U.S.
in the 1980s), arsenic continues
to contaminate orchards and
farm fields.13, 14 Today arsenic is
considered a known carcinogen
implicated as a risk factor for
lung, bladder, and skin cancer,
as well as a risk for other diseases such as cardiovascular
disease and diabetes.15 In part
because of its use as a pesticide
in the past and the present, it is
found in measurable amounts
in highly consumed foods such
as apple juice and rice.16
Likewise, the use of DDT in
the mid-20th century continues to affect public health
and the environment today.
Though DDT was banned more
than 40 years ago, its breakdown product continues to be
found in certain foods, such
as dairy, potatoes, and meat,17
and consumers are still at
significant risk of exposure.18
Recent reports show that birds
are still dying from DDT in
towns where the pesticide was
manufactured more than 50
years ago.19 Despite those clear
lessons from history, the cycle
continues.
Based on history, two things
are certain: Pesticides eventually lose their effectiveness,
and the full extent of negative
effects on human health and
the environment will eventually come to light—probably
after the pesticide is no longer
effective and has been replaced
by something new and differently toxic. We believe it
is important to step off the
“pesticide treadmill” and break
the cycle.
Consumers can play a key
role in breaking this cycle by
buying foods grown without
the use of industrial and toxic
pesticides.
Pesticides Used
Before and After
Plant Cultivation
When people think of pesticides
applied to crops, they probably
picture an airplane flying over
a farm field, or a truck with
a sprayer driving through an
orchard, spraying pesticides
on the crops while they are
growing. But in the case of
many pesticides, application is
often applied to seeds, soil, and
crops before and after the actual
growing period.
For example, on some fruits
and vegetables, one-third to
one-half of the residues are from
pesticides that were not applied
in the fields or orchards but in
storage.20
Some pesticides applied
in storage target insects, but
others are used to lengthen the
shelf life of the produce. For
example, many types of fruit,
such as oranges and peaches,
are treated with a fungicide
to inhibit mold.21 Chemicals
can also be applied to vegetables after harvest to prevent
sprouting.22
In the case of seeds, fungicides may be applied during
storage to prevent molding, or
the seeds may be individually
coated in pesticides as a prophylactic pest treatment.23 Additionally, pesticides in the form of
gas, known as fumigants, are
often injected into the soil prior
to planting to sterilize the fields
from subterranean pests.24
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 7
P
Human Health Concerns
esticides are unique
Air: Five
pesticides were
detected in more
than half of air
and rain samples
in Mississippi.26
Rain: Researchers
found glyphosate,
a commonly used
herbicide, in 60 to
100 percent of air and
rain samples in Iowa
and Mississippi.29
Homes: 2,4-D,
a chlorophenoxy
herbicide, has been
found in dust samples
from vacuum cleaners
in 95 percent of homes
near farms in Iowa.27
Our bodies:
Organophosphate
pesticide
metabolites have
been detected in
the urine of children
and adults.30, 31, 32
Farmers use
nearly 700
million pounds
of pesticides
every year.25
Water: The U.S.
Geological Survey
found neonicotinoid
insecticides in water
from every one of the
nine streams tested in
the Midwest.28
Did You Know?
• The national Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) has found
that 29 different pesticide metabolites—
the components of pesticides that
remain in the environment or body after
they are broken down—are present in
the bodies of most Americans.36
• Approximately 40 different EPAregistered pesticides currently on
the market are classified as known,
probable, or possible human
carcinogens.37
• Pesticides may induce chronic
health complications in children,
including neurodevelopmental or
behavioral problems, birth defects,
asthma, and cancer.38
8 Pesticide Report March 2015
Wildlife:
Complex
mixtures of
pesticides
have been
detected in
the tissues of
wildlife.35
among manufactured
chemical products. Unlike
other chemical products that
are designed for a certain
purpose and may have toxic
properties as an unintended
side effect, pesticides are intentionally toxic—toxic by design.
They are made to interfere with
biological functions in living
organisms and are manufactured and released into our
environment and food supply
not in spite of their toxicity but
because of their toxicity.
Fully understanding and
documenting the full range of
negative effects on nontargeted
living organisms—including
humans—requires long-term
and in-depth study. Because
of the inherent toxicity of
pesticides, medical and public
health experts have long raised
concerns.
For example, the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
points out that there is “a
growing body of literature that
suggests that pesticides may
induce chronic health complications in children, including
neurodevelopmental or behavioral problems, birth defects,
asthma, and cancer.”39
The President’s Cancer Panel
of the National Institutes of
Health writes that exposure to
pesticides has been linked to
brain/central nervous system,
breast, colon, lung, ovarian,
pancreatic, kidney, testicular,
and stomach cancers, as well
as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin
lymphoma, multiple myeloma,
and soft tissue sarcoma.40
Approximately 40 different
EPA-registered pesticides that
are currently on the market
are classified as known, probable, or possible human
carcinogens.41
Although 40 known,
probable, or possible human
carcinogens may be a disconcerting number in and of itself,
it occupies a small percentage of the approximately 900
registered active ingredients
in use today.42 Unfortunately,
many of these chemicals have
not been proved noncarcinogenic but rather fall into the
cancer classifications of “not
likely to be carcinogenic to
humans” and “not classifiable”
(because of a lack of sufficient
information on which to base
an assessment).43
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges that the associations
between pesticide exposure and
certain cancer and noncancer
chronic health effects are well
documented in the peer-reviewed literature and sets tolerance levels for residues to try to
protect the public and environment from adverse effects.44
Weighing Human Health in Pesticide Approvals
Our food: More than
half of food samples
(52.6 percent) tested
for pesticide residues
by the Department of
Agriculture in 2012
contained at least one
pesticide, and almost
one-third (29 percent)
contained residues
of two or more
pesticides.33
T
EPA approves and sets
tolerances for pesticides.
Its regulatory authority comes
from two federal laws: the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
and the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA).45
FIFRA authorizes the EPA to
approve or deny the registration and use of any pesticide.46
While decisions to approve or
prohibit a pesticide are based
on a risk-benefit approach,
FIFRA does not limit the
decision to approve a pesticide
solely on the human health or
environmental risks of pesticides. Instead FIFRA also states
that “benefits of the use of the
he
Drinking water:
The herbicide
atrazine has
been found in
groundwater
and rural water
supplies.34
pesticide” must be considered.47, 48
A problem with that
approach is that the benefits are
assessed under the assumption
that farmers must have chemicals for pest control.49 The
availability and feasibility of
“alternatives,” including alternative practices used in organic
agriculture, do not appear to
be given much weight when
considering the benefits of the
chemical. 50 And although the
EPA’s mission is “to protect
human health and the environment,”51 the law governing
the EPA’s approach to pesticide
regulation does not require that
the risks to human health and
the environment be prioritized
over “benefits” in the decision-making process. 52
One of the ways EPA tries
to balance the health risks
and purported benefits is to
set tolerance levels for most
pesticides when they become
registered. Tolerances are the
maximum amount of the pesticide residue that is allowed to
occur on a food, and that is an
amount that the EPA expects
with reasonable certainty to
cause no harm. If levels above
a tolerance are found, the
government can take enforcement actions. Tolerances are
based on a risk assessment
conducted by the EPA that
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 9
takes into account a number of
factors, including how much
of the pesticide is used, how
much is found on food, and
the toxicity of the chemical. 53
The toxicity is determined
by reviewing multiple toxicology studies conducted on
animals. Typically the agency
will determine what the lowest
dose of the chemical is that can
have an effect on animals and
then apply additional safety or
uncertainty factors. The factors
are applied for many reasons,
including the uncertainty
inherent to extrapolate animal
studies to humans. 54
Of course, those tolerance
levels are only as good as the
data on which they are based.
Much of the scientific evidence
and data that EPA reviews and
relies upon in making its decision during the risk assessment
are provided by the companies
seeking pesticide registration. 55
And it is that initial submission
of evidence and data that will
continue to form the basis for
re-evaluations and reviews in
the future, despite the potential
for the data to become outdated
as scientific techniques and
our understanding of pesticide
toxicity evolves. 56
Another limitation is that
for some effects, animal
models may not be adequate
for evaluating the effects on
humans, such as the development of neurological diseases and the disruption of
the human hormone system
(endocrine disruption). There
is widespread agreement in
the scientific community that
traditional safety testing does
not adequately capture the
effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals. A report by the
World Health Organization
and the United Nations Environmental Programme states:
10 Pesticide Report March 2015
“For a large range of human
health effects, such as female
reproductive disorders and
hormonal cancers, there are no
viable laboratory models. This
seriously hampers progress in
understanding the full scale of
risks.”57
The endocrine disruption
effects of DDT are a good
example of that issue. DDT was
banned decades ago because
it persists in the environment, accumulates in fatty
tissues, and can cause adverse
health effects on wildlife. 58
But it wasn’t noted until well
after its ban that it could have
subtle but important effects on
pregnancy, birth weight, and
lactation. 59
Traditional safety testing
also assumes that higher doses
are more harmful than lower
doses.60 Yet in 2000, an independent panel of experts convened by the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program found that some
endocrine disrupting chemicals
defy that convention and can
have effects at very low levels,
even below the “no effect” levels
determined by traditional toxicology testing methods.61
In addition, while our ability
to understand the true toxicity of individual pesticides is
limited, mixtures of pesticides
present an even greater challenge to toxicologists.62 Unfortunately, finding mixtures of
multiple pesticide residues
on one type of produce is the
rule and not the exception. In
addition, consumers probably
consume multiple produce
items with multiple different
residues on them.
Numerous studies have
reported that exposure to a
combination of pesticides will
have unique effects and that
mixtures of pesticides could
have “greater than additive”
effects.63 Those combined
effects are often termed “synergistic” effects. In addition,
pesticides are formulated
products, which means they
are mixtures with an active
ingredient and many “inert”
ingredients.64
Yet the effects of chemical
mixtures are largely untested
and unknown,65 and “mixture
assessment” is an evolving
discipline within toxicology.66
Testing is generally done on
individual pesticides rather
than on mixtures, and on the
active ingredient alone, rather
than on the final product with
inert ingredients.67
The active ingredients may
be tested alone for toxicology
studies, but the inert ingredients may also be toxic themselves.68 And unlike the active
ingredients, inert ingredient
disclosure on pesticides labels
is not required (because of
confidential business information protections), making
it almost impossible for the
public or independent scientists
to assess exposure and adverse
impacts.69
And finally, the EPA continues to make decisions based
on incomplete safety information. For example, the agency
approved the now widely used
neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid, even though the
EPA stated in a 2008 review
that “the existing hazard data
base for imidacloprid does
not include any immunotoxicity data,” and “therefore, an
immunotoxicity study will be
required.” 70 Despite incomplete
data, the EPA has approved the
pesticide, and residues appear
in and on the foods that Americans eat.71
PESTICIDE TERMINOLOGY
Types of Pesticides
P
F
esticide: A general term for products that control pests. Pesticides can target insects (“insecticides”), plants (“herbicides”), fungi (“fungicides”), or other pests.72
umigant: A pesticide that produces gas or vapor intended to destroy pests.
H
I
erbicide: These products kill weeds and other plants that grow where they are not wanted.
nsecticide: These products kill insects and other arthropods.
F
ungicide: Kills fungi (includes blights, mildews, molds, rusts).
Classes of Insecticides
O
rganochlorine pesticides: A class of insecticides commonly used in the mid-20th century.
They’re very harmful to wildlife, especially birds of prey. Almost all have been banned or phased
out in the U.S.73, 74
C
arbamate pesticides: A class of pesticides that affects the nervous system of insects by
disrupting an enzyme that regulates acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter also found in the nervous
system of mammals (including humans).75, 76
O
rganophosphate pesticides: A class of pesticides that affect the nervous system by disrupting an enzyme that regulates acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter also found in the nervous system
of mammals (including humans). They were developed prior to World War II as nerve gas, and they
were developed as insecticides because of their similar toxic effects on insects.77
P
yrethroid pesticides: A class of pesticides that is the synthetic version of a naturally occur-
ring pesticide found in chrysanthemum flowers. The synthetic version resists degradation by
sunlight and persists in the environment.78
N
eonicotinoid pesticides: A class of pesticides with a common mode of action that affects the
central nervous system of insects, causing paralysis and death. Neonicotinoids are a relatively
new class of pesticides and are used heavily as a replacement for older pesticides that have lost their
effectiveness. Neonicotinoids are implicated in honeybee deaths and colony collapse disorder.79
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 11
has pointed out that early childhood exposures
to certain organophosphate pesticides, which
can go undetected because of the lack of overt
symptoms, can lead to lasting effects on learning, attention, and behavior.93
Research is now beginning to show adverse
effects on the neurological development of
children who are exposed to organophosphate
pesticides from the foods they eat. A 2010 study
by researchers at the Harvard School of Public
Health found that children with higher levels of
organophosphate pesticide metabolites in their
urine were more likely to be diagnosed with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Their conclusion: “These findings support the
hypothesis that organophosphate exposure, at
levels common in U.S. children, may contribute
to ADHD prevalence.”94
Other types of pesticides, including those
belonging to the neonicotinoid class, which
are supposedly safer alternatives to organophosphates, also target the nervous system
and are potentially harmful.95 There are few
studies on the precise effects of neonicotinoids
on mammals, and emerging developmental
neurotoxicity studies raise concerns that these
pesticides may adversely affect human health,
especially the developing brain.96, 97
Risks to Young Children
In a 1993 National Research Council report,
public health experts articulated their concern
that infants and children can be especially vulnerable to the effects of pesticides.80 In 2012 the
American Academy of Pediatrics reiterated that
point, based on a growing body of scientific literature that links pesticide exposure to chronic
health complications in children, including neurodevelopmental or behavioral problems, birth
defects, asthma, and cancer.81
Most insecticides have neurotoxic potential, and children can be especially vulnerable
because of their stage of development, differences in metabolism, and inability to detoxify
compounds.82 Infants and children also eat more
food per pound of body weight than adults.
There are other, less obvious, reasons children
may be more vulnerable to pesticide exposure.
Children’s bodies have much lower levels of
detoxifying enzymes that deactivate widely used
12 Pesticide Report March 2015
pesticides.83-86 Children may also be vulnerable
because their immune and nervous systems
are still developing, in some cases through
adolescence.87
Some of the most widely used insecticides,
such as chlorpyrifos,88 belong to a class of pesticides called organophosphates.89 Those pesticides are designed to interfere with nerve transmissions in insects—enough that it kills them.
But the enzymes that those pesticides target in
insects are also found in the nervous systems of
mammals, including humans.90 The Environmental Protection Agency readily acknowledges
that organophosphates are neurological toxicants to mammals.91
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has
voiced concern that studies in animals show
that “even a single, low-level exposure to certain
organophosphates, during particular times of
early brain development, can cause permanent
changes in brain chemistry as well as changes in
behavior, such as hyperactivity.”92 And the NIH
Organophosphate Pesticides
Organophosphate pesticides are toxic
to the neurological system.
☛
33 million pounds of organophosphate pesticides were used in the U.S. in
2007.98
☛
Organophosphate pesticides are prohibited on organic farms.
☛
Children who eat organic fruits and
vegetables drastically reduce their exposure
to organophosphate pesticides.
☛
Organophosphate pesticide metabolites are detected in the urine of children
who eat conventional fruits and vegetables.
☛
Children with higher levels of organophosphate pesticide metabolites in their
urine were more likely to be diagnosed
with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) in a 2010 study.99
☛
Most insecticides
have neurotoxic
potential, and
children can be
especially
vulnerable,
because of
their stage of
development,
differences in
metabolism,
and inability
to detoxify
compounds.
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 13
Q&A With Dr. Charles Benbrook
Q&A with Dr. Charles Benbrook on the progress since passage of legislation in 1996 mandating a
reduction in pesticide use, with a special focus on crops affecting children and the challenges that still lie
ahead.
Dr. Benbrook has been a collaborator on this project and is the co-author of Consumer Reports’ 1998
groundbreaking pesticide report, Worst First.
CR: What are the victories since the passage of FQPA almost 20 years ago? What
progress have we seen?
Benbrook: Getting the EPA focused and moving to better protect vulnerable populations, especially
Food Quality Protection Act (1996):
Focus on Protecting Children
In 1996, Congress unanimously passed the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which
amended two existing laws that address pesticides (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetics Act).100
The FQPA required the EPA to ensure that
pesticide tolerances are safe for all vulnerable populations, including infants and
children. When setting tolerance levels for
residues on foods, the law requires that the
EPA account for aggregate exposure from
multiple sources of pesticide residues and
apply an additional tenfold safety factor to
the “reasonable certainty of no harm” tolerance-setting calculations, unless reliable and
sufficient information exists for the agency
to determine that another factor provides
14 Pesticide Report March 2015
adequate protection.101 That is to account
for the unique risks faced by infants and
children and to ensure that all sources of
pesticide residue consumption and exposure
(food, water, residential uses) are included in
the calculations.102
In 2001 Consumer Reports reported
that in more than two-thirds of decisions
on organophosphate pesticides, the EPA
did not apply a tenfold safety factor. The
EPA applied a tenfold safety factor in only
16 percent of decisions, and in another 16
percent of decisions, the EPA applied a
threefold safety factor.103
As of 2006, it appears that the FQPA has
led to a reduction in pesticide dietary risks,
especially from domestic produce.104, 105
pregnant women, infants, and children, was by far Consumer Reports’ most important accomplishment.
In a 1998 report called Worst First (WF), Consumer Reports urged the EPA to act quickly and aggressively in reducing, or better yet eliminating, the major children’s food uses of the most toxic half-dozen
organophosphate (OP) insecticides. The seminal 1993 NAS report “Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and
Children” explained the compelling scientific case for action against the top OP risk drivers. The report
named names and identified 40 pesticide-food combinations then accounting for disproportionally high
risks to infants, children, and pregnant women. OPs accounted for 25 of those 40 pesticide-food combinations. Carbamate insecticides were the risk drivers in 13 more.
Since FQPA implementation began in 1996, U.S. growers have eliminated 99 to 100 percent of the
risk stemming from 16 of the 40 Worst First pesticide uses. Overall among conventional farmers in the
U.S., the cumulative risk accounted for by the 40 WF uses went down 85 percent. Consumer Reports
obviously picked the 40 WF uses well, because they accounted for 66 percent of overall risk in 1996,
across all 200-plus pesticides applied on 150-plus foods.
Taking into account both domestically grown and imported conventional foods, 40 WF risk fell 77
percent, and overall dietary risks were reduced 81 percent from 1996 to 2013.
But Department of Agriculture (USDA) pesticide residue data shows that there is unfinished business,
still, on the 40 WF uses. Those uses accounted for 60 percent of overall risk in 1996, and though risks
have gone down 81 percent since 1996, the 40 WF still account for 70 percent of total risk in 2013.
CR: What challenges still remain? What crop/pesticide combinations are still being used
that are harmful to consumers, especially the most vulnerable populations?
Benbrook: Acephate, and its breakdown product methamidophos, on green beans was the No. 1
risk driver in 2013. That use accounted for around one-half of total risk across all pesticides and food.
Residues and risk stemming from a half-dozen post-harvest fungicides applied in packing sheds and
warehouses are a growing concern. Iprodione residues in fruits such as plums, nectarines, and peaches
account for 10 percent or more of annual, overall risks. Fludioxonil, another packing-shed fungicide, is
also often found in soft-skinned fruits, and a third fungicide, imazalil, is a problem in bananas, citrus, and
some other fruits. The very high-risk insecticides chlorpyrifos and oxamyl still show up regularly in peppers, squash, and several other fruits and vegetables.
There are growing reasons for concern about residues of the widely used herbicide glyphosate as
well, along with the half-dozen systemic insecticides in the nicotinyl family (the pesticides implicated in
honeybee colony collapse disorder). While glyphosate and the nicotinyls are not nearly as toxic ounce for
ounce as the 40 WF OPs, there are far more residues of both in the U.S. food supply and drinking water
than of the OPs, even back in the mid-1990s. Risk, after all, is a function of dose, toxicity, and time of
exposure (i.e., a person’s age and health status). The EPA needs to finish the job of getting the rest of the
WF risk driver uses out of the food supply. Then it needs to sharpen its focus on the handful of pesticides
used in conjunction with GE (genetically engineered) crops.
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 15
Risks to Farmers
and Farmworkers
Laws and Regulations:
Protecting Farmworkers
Compared with the general
population, farmers, farmworkers, and even their children are at higher risk because
they experience more direct
exposure to pesticides, at
higher doses, and through various routes (e.g., inhalation after
spraying).106
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates
that 10,000 to 20,000 physician-diagnosed pesticide
poisonings occur each year
among the approximately 2
million people who work in
agriculture.107 Those numbers,
however, may actually underestimate the problem, because
studies also estimate high
rates of underreporting by
workers.108
Farmers and farmworkers
are at higher risk not only for
acute poisoning but also for
illnesses associated with longterm exposure. The EPA has
identified at least six chronic
diseases that have a well-documented association with
agricultural pesticide exposure: non-Hodgkin lymphoma,
prostate cancer, Parkinson’s
disease, lung cancer, bronchitis,
and asthma.109
Most workers in the U.S. labor
force are protected by standards of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the Department
of Labor. Because they are
places of employment, farms
are required under the Occupational Safety and Health Act
to provide safe and healthful
working conditions to workers.135 However, OSHA standards actually do very little to
protect farmers and farmworkers from the harmful effects of
pesticides.
The OSHA standards for
agriculture that deal with pesticides are limited to “hazard
communication”136 and informing workers of the importance
of “good hygiene practices”
such as hand washing before
eating to minimize exposure to
agrochemical residues.137 Farms
with fewer than 10 employees
are exempt from those OSHA
regulations.138
Through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the responsibility to regulate pesticides,
including to protect farmworkers from the hazards of
pesticide exposure, has been
assigned to the EPA. Specifically, in 1972 amendments to
16 Pesticide Report March 2015
FIFRA, Congress directed the
EPA to take steps to protect
humans and the environment
from unreasonable adverse
effects of pesticides, with the
intent that farmers and farmworkers should be among
those afforded protection.139
As a result, the EPA issued its
Worker Protection Standard
(WPS) in 1992.140
The EPA relies on risk-benefit analyses in its approach to
protecting farmers and farmworkers from the toxic effects
of pesticides. The EPA acknowledges that “the associations
between pesticide exposure
and certain cancer and noncancer chronic health effects
are well documented” and that
reducing the risk of harm is an
important goal.141 The agency’s
approach to protecting workers
is not to prohibit the use of
pesticides that are harmful to
human health but rather to
set requirements focused on
reducing exposure to those
hazardous pesticides. That
includes requiring employers
to provide personal protective
equipment, clear instructions
on pesticide labeling, and basic
safety training as well as setting
basic requirements for notification of treated areas and
restricting entry by farmworkers after pesticides have been
applied.142
Those protections are
important but have been
inadequate.143 For example,
the EPA has found that risks
from certain organophosphate
exposures to farmworkers still
exceed the agency’s level of
concern, even when all provisions in the current WPS
are followed.144 After years of
pressure from various farmworker advocacy groups to
afford farmworkers better
protections from pesticides,
the EPA is in the process of
revising its standards (as of date
of publication).145 While the
agency proposes to strengthen
the protections from exposure,
the basic risk-benefit approach
remains the same and harmful
pesticides will probably continue to be used.146
Risks to Rural Residents
Pesticides contaminate the
air, water, and even rain, with
levels of contamination higher
in rural areas near farms. That
contamination affects those
living near farms, who have
been shown to have higher
levels of pesticide metabolites
in their urine than those living
farther away.147 This puts rural
residents at potentially higher
risk.
Childhood exposure to
pesticide residue is especially
concerning. The neurological
effects from pesticide exposure
on children living near farm
fields were first documented
in the late 1990s. A study in
Mexico compared children
living in an agricultural valley
where pesticide use is common
with children living in the
foothills of the same region,
where pesticide use is less
common. The children in the
valley, who had been exposed
to multiple pesticides in pregnancy and childhood, had
more decreases in stamina,
eye-hand coordination,
memory, and figure-drawing
skills than the children living
in the foothills.148
Research in the agricultural
Salinas Valley in California (the
CHAMACOS study) has linked
organophosphate pesticide
exposure in the womb and
early childhood to lower birth
weight,149 neurodevelopmental delays and problems with
attention,150 and reduced IQ.151
Those deficits in IQ are similar
to those documented from
exposure to lead.152, 153
And a 2014 study found
higher rates of autism in
California children who were
exposed to organophosphates
and other types of pesticides
when their mothers were
pregnant with them. Children
of mothers who were living
within a mile of a farm field
that was treated with a pesticide during their pregnancy
were found to be at 60 percent
increased risk for autism spectrum disorder.154
The effects on the neurological system of rural residents starts in the womb and
continues throughout life.
Studies have suggested that
people living in regions with
greater pesticide use may be
more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s
disease, and multiple sclerosis
as compared with people living
in regions with lower pesticide
use.155-158
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 17
Higher prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides, as measured by levels of organophosphate breakdown products in the
mother’s urine during pregnancy, are associated with lower scores
on their children’s cognitive tests when performed at age 7.
The figure from a study of the CHAMACOS cohort shows how
scores on a Full Scale IQ test are highest for those in the group
with the lowest average levels of prenatal exposure compared to
those in groups with higher levels of exposure.
CHAMACOS
Farmworker Family Health Study
Organophosphate pesticides are toxic to the
neurological system at high doses, but much
remains unknown about how long-term, lowlevel pesticide exposure in the womb, during
infancy, and during early childhood affects
health and development.
To shed more light on questions of pesticide
exposure and growth, health, and development,
researchers involved with the CHAMACOS
(Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers
and Children of Salinas) study in California have
followed hundreds of children living in the agricultural Salinas Valley in California from birth to
age 12. The study began in 1998 and is funded
by the National Institute for Environmental
Health Sciences, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (2001 to 2006), and private
foundations.
CHAMACOS study researchers have published studies linking pesticide exposure to
lower birth weight, neurodevelopmental delays,
lower IQ, and other adverse effects:
Effect of Prenatal Organophosphate Exposure on Full
Scale IQ Scores
110
Full Scale IQ Score
108
96
0
100
200
300
400
500
Level of Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides
Source: Bouchard et al, 2011
Reduced IQ (2011):
Jeff Greenberg / Getty Images
Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides is associated with poorer intellectual
development in 7-year old children. Children
whose mothers had the highest levels of pesticide residues in their urine when they were
pregnant have an average deficit of 7 IQ points
compared with the children whose mother’s
urine had the lowest pesticide levels while
pregnant.160
18 Pesticide Report March 2015
102
98
Exposure to organophosphate pesticides in
the womb, as measured by the levels of the
pesticide’s breakdown products in the pregnant
mother’s urine, is associated adversely with
attention, especially when measured at age 5,
and especially in boys.159
Living near farms where methyl bromide was
used during pregnancy is associated with lower
birth weight and shorter birth length.161
104
100
Neurodevelopmental development
& attention (2010):
Birth outcomes (2013):
106
600
Agricultural Population Health Study
The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) is a prospective cohort study that is investigating the
effects of environmental, occupational, dietary, and genetic factors on the health of the agricultural population. The first interview was conducted in 1993, and within four years nearly 90,000
participants had been enrolled.
The research project is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. A major focus
of the study is looking at the health effects of pesticides.
Some of the study’s findings to date:
 Acute poisoning
People who work in agriculture are at risk for acute poisoning by pesticides, which can be
fatal. Almost a quarter (23 percent) of pesticide applicators have reported at least one “high
pesticide exposure event” in their lifetime. Episodes of high exposure are associated with
changes in health, including subtle changes in memory and attention as well as increased
respiratory disease.122, 123
Strawberries: A Case Study in Industrial Agriculture
Conventional strawberry production, with its
heavy reliance on chemicals, comes at a high cost
to the environment and public health.
Conventional strawberry farmers often fumigate
the soil to essentially sterilize it, killing most living
organisms in the soil.110 Conventional strawberry
growers have relied for years on the fumigant
methyl bromide.111 Methyl bromide is banned by
international treaty because it depletes the ozone
layer.112 The EPA has granted “critical use exemptions” that have allowed California strawberry
growers to continue using it.113
In an estimated 30 to 50 percent of agricultural
applications, methyl bromide is released into the
air when applied to the soil, even if soil covers are
used.114
Methyl bromide is a “multisystem toxicant,”
producing severe and sometimes permanent
nervous system effects.115 Methyl bromide is also
considered a potential occupational carcinogen116
and has been linked to an increase in stomach
cancer rates among farmers.117 Methyl bromide
poses risks not only to farmworkers but also
to people living nearby.118 Studies of men who
were not necessarily farming themselves but
who were exposed to “ambient pesticides” from
nearby farms found evidence of a strong association between exposure to methyl bromide and
20 Pesticide Report March 2015
prostate cancer risk.119, 120
In addition, high methyl bromide use within
close proximity of the home during the second
trimester of pregnancy adversely affects babies
(lower birth weight and shorter birth length).121
Methyl bromide is just one of many toxic pesticides used by conventional strawberry growers.
Other types of pesticides, such as neonicotinoids
(see “Honeybees and Pollination” section), are
also used.
 Cancer
In general, farmers have lower levels of cancer than the rest of the population; however,
rates of certain types of cancer are higher among farmers, including prostate cancer and
ovarian cancer.124 AHS researchers identified three organophosphate pesticides and one
organochlorine pesticide that are significantly associated with aggressive prostate cancers.125
Interestingly, participants in the AHS study have lower rates of lung cancer than the general
population, probably because of low levels of smoking among farmers. But when researchers examined the relationship between pesticides and lung cancer incidence, they found
that two widely used herbicides and two widely used insecticides—including the widely used
organophosphate chlorpyrifos—increased the odds of being diagnosed with lung cancer
in a dose-dependent fashion.126 AHS researchers have also observed a significant increase
in stomach cancer risk in those with high exposure to the soil fumigant methyl bromide,127
which is the third most widely used soil fumigant.128
AHS researchers have also found a potential for increased risk of colorectal cancer in farmers with high levels of exposure to two insecticides:
chlorpyrifos and aldicarb.129-131
 Thyroid disease
Surprisingly little is known about the causes of thyroid disease or abnormal thyroid hormone levels, conditions that affect between 1 and 9
percent of American adults.132 Hypothyroidism is the most common type
of thyroid condition, which can cause weight gain, excessive tiredness,
and sensitivity to cold.133
In a 2013 study involving more than 22,000 male pesticide applicators,
AHS researchers found a link between the use of many kinds of pesticides and hypothyroidism. There were increased odds of hypothyroidism
with the use of six herbicides and eight insecticides. The analysis shows
increasing odds of developing hypothyroidism with increasing level of
exposure to two of the herbicides and five of the insecticides.134
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 21
O
Environmental and Ecological Concerns
ne of the inherent draw-
backs of pesticides is that
it is not possible to design the
chemicals to kill only plants
and animals that farmers
consider “pests” while sparing
all others. Many of the most
commonly used classes of
pesticides are very toxic to
other living organisms, including beneficial insects and
wildlife.166
For example, the most widely
used soil fumigant,167 metam
sodium, is toxic to turtles.
When researchers applied this
pesticide to a farm field, then
deposited snapping turtle eggs
in the treated soil, they found
that even at the lowest rates of
metam sodium application, all
of the turtle eggs died.168
Pesticides can also be
harmful to birds. It has been
estimated that 72 million birds
die each year from pesticide
poisoning, but the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service states that
this is an underestimate.169, 170
The difficulty of controlling
where pesticides and their
metabolites end up makes
it even more challenging to
avoid unintended impacts to
wildlife and the environment.
Pesticide drift, runoff, leaching,
and persistence all factor into
a pesticide’s ability to migrate
into the environment and pose
threats to the health of people
and ecosystems beyond the
boundaries of the fields where
a chemical is applied.171
Atrazine, one of the most
broadly used herbicides in
the United States, is a prime
example.172 After scientific
research revealed atrazine’s
pervasive presence in water
supplies, detrimental impacts
22 Pesticide Report March 2015
to aquatic life, and potential
human health threats, the
European Union banned atrazine in 2004.173 Despite similar
evidence available in the U.S.,
however, the EPA concluded
after a review of atrazine in
2003 to allow the chemical’s
continued use with some additional restrictions.174, 175
Of course, atrazine is only
one of many pesticides finding
its way into surface and drinking water, soil, and air. And
although monitoring requirements and regulatory safety
standards exist to some degree
for atrazine and other pesticides, many remain unmonitored and lacking in adequate
safety standards.176
Honeybees and Pollination
The EPA acknowledges that
most insecticides are toxic to
bees.177 Healthy populations of
bees are critical to maintaining
a healthy food supply.
Almonds, apples,
cherries,
blueberries, squash, and
pumpkins are just a handful
of the 90 commercially grown
crops—mostly fruits and vegetables—that depend on honeybees for pollination.178
In southwest China, where
wild bees have been eradicated
by excessive pesticide use and a
lack of natural habitat, farmers
have been forced to painstakingly pollinate their apple and
pear trees by hand.179
Beekeepers in the U.S. have
noticed devastating declines
of honeybees in recent years:
losses of entire beehives,
known as colony collapse
disorder (CCD). According to
a survey funded by the USDA,
31.1 percent of managed honeybee colonies were lost nationwide during the winter of 2012
to 2013.180
The EPA and USDA claim
that CCD cannot be explained
by a single factor. However,
the National Research Council
notes that pesticides can
have negative effects on bee
behaviors,181 and independent
research increasingly points
to a specific class of pesticides,
neonicotinoids, as a major
cause of CCD.182 -188 The first of
the neonicotinoid pesticides,
imidacloprid, was registered
with the EPA in 1994.189
According to the EPA, neonicotinoids are highly toxic to
aquatic organisms, honeybees,
and other beneficial insects
on an acute basis.190 Neonicotinoids disrupt the central
nervous system of insects,
causing paralysis and death
from acute exposure.191
The EPA generally attempts
to protect honeybees from the
acute toxic effects of pesticides,
including neonicotinoids,192
by urging farmers not to apply
pesticides while bees are foraging. But neonicotinoids are
unique in several ways, which
has an impact on how they
affect honeybees.
First, neonicotinoids are systemic pesticides, which means
they are absorbed in every
tissue of the plant. As the plant
grows, it continues to release
small doses of the insecticide
through every tissue, including nectar and pollen, thereby
continuing to expose beneficial
insects such as honeybees that
forage on those crops.193
Second, neonicotinoids
probably have harmful effects
even at low doses that are not
acutely toxic but ultimately
affect long-term honeybee survival. Recent research increasingly links low-level exposure
to neonicotinoid pesticides
with effects on the memory194
and navigational skills of bees,
and survival of hives.195-198 A
growing number of independent scientists are concluding
that sublethal exposure to
neonicotinoids is probably
the main culprit for the
occurrence of CCD.199
The European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA) reviewed
recent science, 200-202 and based
on the findings, the European
Commission announced in
2013 that it would impose a
two-year restriction on the use
of three commonly used neonicotinoid pesticides.203
Laws and Regulations:
Protecting Wildlife
and Pollinators
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) requires the EPA to
ensure that a pesticide will not
pose unreasonable harm to
the environment, and defines
“environment” as “water, air,
land, and all plants and man
and other animals living
therein, and the interrelationships that exist among these.”204
However, it is very uncommon for the EPA to either deny
or cancel an existing registration for a pesticide solely or
largely because of risks to birds,
fish, and other nontarget (nonhuman) organisms.205
Despite the mounting evidence implicating neonicotinoids in honeybee deaths, and
pressure from environmental
and public interest groups,
the EPA continues to allow
the use of neonicotinoids in
agriculture.
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 23
The Impacts of Pesticide Use
Pesticides are designed to be toxic to living organisms.
☛
Rural residents. 2,4-D and other chlorophenoxy herbicides are listed as 2B carcinogens, “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”206 Studies show an association between cancer
mortality and living near farm fields treated with the herbicide 2,4-D.207
Honeybees. Neonicotinoids are linked to honeybee colony collapse disorder.
☛
Nearly one-third of managed honeybee colonies were lost during the winter of 2012 to
208
2013.209
☛
Monarch butterflies. Glyphosate kills the milkweed plant, the primary food of
monarch butterflies. Monarch butterfly populations have declined drastically over the past
decade.210
☛ Children. Organophosphate pesticide exposure has been linked to deficits in IQ,
attention, and behavioral development in children.
211
212
☛
Rural residents. Atrazine is a suspected endocrine disruptor, which may affect
reproductive health and children’s sexual development.213
☛
Turtles. The eggs of snapping turtles die when they are laid in a field treated with the
common soil fumigant metam sodium.214
☛
Why Organic is the Right Way
☛
Federal law prohibits the use of almost all
synthetic pesticides on organic farms.
Farmers. High pesticide exposure among farmers has been linked to prostate and
ovarian cancer,215 lung cancer,216 stomach cancer,217 hypothyroidism,218 changes in memory
and attention,219 and increased respiratory disease.220
Birds. An estimated 72 million wild birds die each year from pesticide
exposure.221
☛
Farmworkers. 10,000 to 20,000 physician-diagnosed pesticide poisonings
occur each year among farmers and farmworkers.222
☛ There are currently no synthetic herbicides approved for use on organic food crops.
☛ All neonicotinoids are prohibited on organic farms.
☛ The herbicide glyphosate is prohibited on organic farms.
☛ All organophosphate pesticides are prohibited on organic farms.
☛ Only 10 synthetic insecticides are approved for use on organic farms. Some can be
used only if they do not come into direct contact with soil or crops (e.g., as bait traps).
223
224
☛ The herbicide atrazine is prohibited on organic farms.
☛ Synthetic soil fumigants are prohibited on organic farms.
☛ Biodiversity is richer in organic than conventional farm fields.
☛ Children who eat organic fruits and vegetables have fewer pesticide residues in their
bodies compared with children who eat conventional fruits and vegetables.
225
226
24 Pesticide Report March 2015
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 25
Genetically Engineered Crops and Increased Herbicide Use
The same chemical companies that manufacture herbicides have genetically engineered crops such as corn,
cotton, and soybeans to resist the application of their herbicides. Herbicides that would damage or kill the crops
can be applied directly to the genetically engineered crop, and the resistant crop survives the herbicide application.
Genetic engineering of crops is different from traditional plant breeding because it requires intensive genetic
overwriting to allow for genetic changes that cannot occur in nature.
And some crops are genetically engineered to produce their own pesticides instead of having the pesticides
sprayed onto crops or into the soil where they are planted. This type of genetic engineering incorporates a “natural”
pesticide from bacteria into the genetic makeup of a crop. And because it is secreted by the plant, it cannot be
washed off.230
There are many ethical concerns around the genetic engineering of plant seeds and crops. Biotech corporations
can patent genetically engineered seed and animals. That means corporations can claim ownership of the genetic
code, and most important, ownership of the seed. That has eliminated the
possibility of continuing the age-old practice of saving seed from this year’s
crop for next year’s planting; instead, farmers are required to purchase
new seed annually. If a farmer is the victim of “genetic pollution” (pollen
from a genetically engineered plant drifts onto his or her field, or seed falls
off a truck onto a farm field), the company can sue the farmer for patent
infringement.231
Another major concern with genetically engineered crops is the
accompanying increase in pesticide use. The biotechnology industry claimed
that genetically engineered crops would reduce herbicide use232 but failed
to deliver on those promises. During the first 15 years of commercial use,
genetically engineered crops were responsible for an increase of 527 million
pounds of herbicide use.233
One of the most widely used herbicides is glyphosate (Roundup™), in part
because resistance to this chemical has been genetically engineered into
popular commodity crops such as corn and soy.234 Because of the quickly
expanding use of genetically engineered crops since their introduction and
the corresponding expansive use of glyphosate, weeds now exist that
are resistant to glyphosate, earning them the nickname “superweeds.”235
Resistance can develop relatively fast; in fact, within as little as three
years, weed species may develop resistance to the chemical.236, 237 As
a result, glyphosate may quickly be losing its effectiveness. There are
currently at least 28 weeds with known resistance to glyphosate.238
With reduced effectiveness, farmers have used more and more
glyphosate.239 For that and other reasons, the EPA raised tolerance
levels for glyphosate to allow for expanded uses on food crops.240 As
a result, recent studies have shown that genetically engineered crops
often retain higher levels of glyphosate residues.241 Yet the most
recent pesticide-tolerance-testing reports released by the USDA
failed to test for glyphosate residues.242 Perhaps most concerning,
the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified
glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.
Rather than acknowledge the value in diversified crop
practices and moderated pesticide use, chemical companies
have come up with a new wave of genetically engineered
common crops for resistance to the herbicide 2,4-D in addition
to resistance to glyphosate. Much like the case of glyphosate
and the first round of glyphosate-tolerant crops, the USDA
estimates that approval of these new genetically engineered
crops would lead to an increase in the use of 2,4-D on
crops from 77.8 million to 176 million pounds.243 The USDA
approved these 2,4-D-resistant varieties in six states
in September 2014 and as of April 2015 is currently
considering whether to approve expanded uses in 10
additional states.244, 245 In June 2015, IARC classified
2,4-D as a possible human carcinogen.
26 Pesticide Report March 2015
Reducing Exposure to Pesticides:
What Consumers Can Do
It is important to remember that fruits
and vegetables are a crucial part of a
healthy diet. People who eat plenty of
fruits and vegetables tend to be healthier and live longer, even when the produce they eat comes from conventional
production systems. But there are many
benefits to making choices that avoid
pesticide residues and support farmers
who are committed to reducing their
dependence on pesticides. To help consumers make such informed decisions,
we created two guides.
The first is our guide to residue risk,
which is based on a comprehensive
analysis of government data to generate a produce Dietary Risk Index
(DRI). This index can help consumers
minimize the risk from exposure to
pesticide residues. The methodology
for creating the index and our findings
is explained in detail below. This index
can help consumers minimize their risk
from exposure to pesticide residues in
and on the foods they eat.
The second is our guide to labels.
Labels on foods can help consumers
understand the way the food was produced, and better understand which
pesticides were used even when there
are low or no residues on the fruits and
vegetables. For example, soil fumigants may not show up as residues on
fruits and vegetables but their use may
have negative impacts on farmworkers,
rural residents and wildlife. Moreover,
some pesticides that have low known
risks to consumers (and therefore do
not contribute significantly to DRI)
may have unknown risks or known
risks to the environment, wildlife and
pollinators. Labels can vary widely in
how meaningful they are, what the
standards require, and how they are
verified. Understanding labels is therefore critical for consumers who wish
to support farmers following strict and
verified standards that reduce the use of
pesticides.
Did You Know?
A 2015 study found that people who
ate conventionally grown produce
had high concentrations of organophosphate pesticide metabolites in
their urine, and people who reported
eating organic produce had significantly lower levels.227
A 2006 study found that levels of two
organophosphate pesticide metabolites in the urine of children fell to
undetectable levels when the children
were switched to an organic diet.228
A 2010 study suggests that children
with higher levels of organophosphate pesticide metabolites in their
urine are more likely to be diagnosed
with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).229 All organophosphate
pesticides are prohibited in organic
agriculture.
4 digit: XXXX
Conventionally Grown
5 digit: 9-XXXX
Certified Organic
Tip for navigating the produce aisle:
Unpackaged, fresh fruits and vegetables are sold
with a code, often found on stickers or rubber
bands. If the code has four digits, the produce is
conventional. If the code has 5 digits and starts
with a “9,” that signifies that the produce is certified
organic.
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 27
A Consumer Reports Guide to Residue Risk
T
Creating the Dietary Risk Index (DRI)
he DRI is a scoring system that compares
the relative noncancer “risks” of pesticide
exposures from different food sources, risk
trends over time, and differences in relative
risk levels in domestically grown vs. imported
foods. It depends on EPA-recommended pesticide dietary risk assessment methods and
takes into account:
•The amount and frequency of residues
on a given food, as reported in annual
Department of Agriculture pesticide residue-testing results.
•The typical serving size of that food.
•The weight of the person consuming that
food.
•The toxicity of the pesticide as determined
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Below we explain in detail where the above
data is obtained and how it is used to calculate
the DRI score.
Data Sources
Residue Data: USDA PDP
The Department of Agriculture (USDA)
monitors the presence of pesticide residues
on foods through its Pesticide Data Program
(PDP). In operation since 1991, the PDP tests
a variety of food commodities from many
different states, and some countries abroad,
throughout a given year for residues of
hundreds of pesticides. Congress designed
the program to collect pesticide residue data
in food “as eaten” to help the EPA sharpen the
accuracy of its dietary risk assessments. Since
the beginning, the PDP has focused mostly on
foods that play an important role in the diets
of infants and children.
The program focuses on testing a different
set of approximately 12 to 15 commodities
each year (though some items are tested for
two to three years in a row). According to the
USDA, commodities are purchased in bulk at
terminal markets and large chain-store distribution centers as close as possible to the point
28 Pesticide Report March 2015
of consumption. The samples are chosen at
random based on availability without regard
for the origin of the item, though origin data
is recorded. In many cases, large samples
of products from both the U.S. and multiple other countries are collected, as well as
smaller samples of imported and domestic
organic products for some commodities.
After collection, samples are shipped to one
of seven state laboratories, where they are
prepared for residue testing by first washing,
then removing inedible portions to mimic
consumer experience. About 5 pounds of each
food are then blended together into a composite sample. The USDA publishes an annual
report that summarizes the results by food
and pesticide. Detailed, raw data files are also
made available; information in them includes
commodity name, purchase state (e.g., California), purchase date, country of origin,
production claims (such as organic), and
pesticide residue level for each sample. Using
that data, the frequency of finding a given
pesticide on each food can be calculated, as
can average residue levels in positive samples
(called “mean of the positives”). In our analysis, we used only the most recent year(s) that
data was available for a given produce-country-production method combination. Data
was derived from the 2002 to 2013 testing
years.
Serving Size: USDA
The serving size for a given food
tested by PDP is obtained from
the USDA recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption, or
other standard references
addressing typical,
average single-serving
sizes.
Weight
Our calculations for the DRI are based on
the diet of a 3½-year-old child estimated to
weigh 16 kilograms (35.2 pounds). We chose
to base our calculation on the diet of a child
because children are especially vulnerable to
the dietary risks from pesticides and because
they have a relatively substantial amount of
intake of a variety of foods relative to their
body size (large dose). In addition, as part of
its responsibilities set forth in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), the EPA is required
to consider the unique effects of pesticides
on infants and children as their brains and
bodies mature.
Toxicity Data: EPA Risk Assessment
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has developed chronic reference doses (RfDs)
for pesticides. RfD values are used by regulatory agencies to set limits for human exposure to chemicals via the diet and drinking
water.
RfDs are the amount of a substance that
people can consume on a daily basis, consistent with “a reasonable certainty of no harm,”
both in the short run and over a lifetime.
However, RfDs do not take the risk of cancer
into consideration, nor has the agency developed test methods to take into account epigenetic or endocrine-system-driven impacts.
RfDs are expressed as milligrams of a pesticide’s active ingredient per kilogram of body
weight per day.
RfDs are calculated by evaluating multiple
toxicology studies. The EPA first identifies
the study producing a statistically significant,
T
adverse impact at the lowest dose level, compared with all other studies. It determines
the lowest dose level producing the adverse
impact (the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect
Level, or LOAEL).
Then the agency identifies the next-lowest
dose level (the No Observable Adverse Effect
Level, or NOAEL). Because the toxicology
studies are typically conducted on mammals
other than humans, the study NOAEL is then
typically divided by a hundredfold safety, or
uncertainty, factor. A safety factor of 10 is
thought to be warranted to account for the
uncertainty in extrapolating from animals to
humans, and another tenfold safety factor is
applied to account for differences in the vulnerability of different population groups.
Since its passage in 1996, the FQPA mandates that the EPA apply an additional tenfold
safety factor to better protect children, unless
the agency determines that it has adequate
data to fully account for the unique sensitivity
on infants, children, and pregnant women.
When this additional safety factor is applied,
the new RfD value is called the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD). As a result of
the FQPA, the total safety factor applied to
a pesticide will typically be 1,000, although
the EPA has dropped the added tenfold safety
factor in many cases.
Ideally, on any given day, a person is not
exposed to a substance at a level greater than
his or her personal RfD. Amounts of a pesticide that lead to exposure greater than the
RfD (or cPAD) can be referred to as exceeding the EPA’s “level of concern.” That puts
those exposed to them at increased risk by
eroding the safety factor embedded in cRfDs
or cPADs.
Calculation of the Dietary Risk Index (DRI)
o calculate the DRI for each food item
addressed in this report, we divided the
average residue level found in a set of samples,
measured as milligrams of pesticide per kilogram of food (also called parts per million
abbreviated as ppm), by what is called the
chronic Reference Concentration (cRfC).
Just like average residue levels, the cRfC is
measured as milligrams per kilogram
body weight per
day. It is the
concentration
level in a single serving of a specific food that
delivers the full amount of the pesticide that
a child of known size could consume per day,
without exceeding the EPA’s level of concern
(or, put otherwise, retaining a “reasonable
certainty of no harm”). A pesticide’s cRfD or
cPAD drives cRfC levels; the more toxic the
pesticide, the lower the cRfD or cPAD, and
hence the lower the cRfC.
Based on our DRI scoring system, a value of
1 would indicate that the average residue level
in a given food delivers to a consumer the
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 29
maximum allowed amount of a pesticide in
a given day, in one serving of the food. DRIs
that exceed 1 mean that the hundredfold, or
thousandfold margin of safety is being cut
into.
Our calculations for DRI are based on the
diet of a 3½-year-old child weighing 16 kilograms (35.2 pounds). We chose to base our
calculation on the diet of a child because
children are especially vulnerable to the
dietary risks from pesticides. The index score
would be lower for an adult than for a child
because of an adult’s greater weight (140 lb).
Calculating the risk index for an adult diet
would result in an index score that is 4 times
lower than that of the 35 lb child, but relative
risks across foods and pesticides would not
change, nor would trends over time.
The Food-Supply Risk
T
he DRI is based on the mean level of all
samples testing positive in a given year.
Suppose PDP tests 500 samples of apples in a
given year, and 100 of them tested positive for
pesticide X, with a cRfC of 0.025 ppm. Also
suppose the mean residue level across the 100
positive samples was 0.05 ppm.
Accordingly, the mean-of-residue DRI
would be 2—well over the EPA level of
concern. For consumers unlucky enough to
buy only apples with residues of pesticide X,
the DRI value of 2 would be accurate. But what
about consumers choosing apples at random?
On average, three out of four samples would
have no residues, hence the DRI-mean metric
could overestimate risk. In fact, the lower
the frequency of positives among any set of
samples, the bigger the difference between
DRI-mean risk levels, and actual risk levels.
Therefore we took our DRI calculations
one step further and created another metric—
the Food Supply-DRI (FS-DRI), to take into
B
From DRI to Risk Categories
ased on our calculation of an FS-DRI
for each produce item-country-production method, we placed items into one of five
categories based on their FS-DRI score. These
categories represent a range of FS-DRI scores
that we have characterized as “very high” (one
serving of an individual food with a FS-DRI
of 1 or more), “high” (between one and five
servings would lead to a FS-DRI score of 1 or
more, which corresponds to a FS-DRI score
of 0.2 to 1), “moderate” (five to 10 servings
would lead to a FS-DRI score of 1 or more,
which corresponds to a FS-DRI score of 0.1 to
0.2), “low” (10 to 100 servings would lead to a
FS-DRI score of 1 or more, which corresponds
to a FS-DRI score of 0.01 to 0.1), and “very
low” (more than 100 servings would lead to a
30 Pesticide Report March 2015
account the frequency of encountering the
risk. The FS-DRI is simply the percent of
samples testing positive multiplied by the
DRI-mean. In the very unusual case where
100 percent of the samples tested are positive,
the FS-DRI = DRI-mean. And in any single
sample, compared with another single sample,
the FS-DRI again equals the DRI-mean.
Because there may be aggregate risk from
the combination of individual pesticides
present on food items, and because the interaction of pesticides is not well understood, the
FS-DRI for each pesticide-food combination
can be added together to create a composite
index (the aggregate FS-DRI). That sum can
be used to compare the relative “risk” of pesticide residues on different foods. That value
can also be summed across all foods eaten to
determine an overall daily risk index. We recommend that individuals do not exceed a DRI
of 1 based on all produce consumed in a day.
FS-DRI score of 1 or more, which corresponds
to a FS-DRI score of less than 0.01).
Risk Category
Daily Servings
Needed to Exceed 1*
FS-DRI Range
Very High
1
1 or greater
High
2-5
0.2 - 1
Moderate
5 - 10
0.1 to 0.2
Low
10 - 100
0.01 to 0.1
Very Low
More than 100
Less than .01
T
Comparing Consumer Reports Guide with the
Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Shopper’s
Guide to Pesticides in Produce™
he Consumer Reports guide is significantly different from the Environmental
Working Group’s (EWG) Shopper’s Guide to
Pesticides in Produce™ (which includes the
EWG’s Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen lists).
Both the Consumer Reports and EWG guides
utilize the USDA PDP database, but the advice
in the EWG guide is mainly driven by the
number of pesticide residues on a produce
item.
CR’s advice and guide differ from the
EWG’s in the following ways:
•We take into account the number of residues per sample, the average level of
A
each residue, the frequency of finding it,
the serving size, and the toxicity of each
pesticide.
•We adhere closely to recommended EPA
dietary risk assessment policies.
•We provide more complete information to
consumers about differences in the risks
associated with pesticides in domestically
grown food, compared with imported
food.
•We integrate noncancer as well as cancer
risks.
Calculation of Cancer Risk in CR Guide
lthough the DRI score is driven by
the chronic toxicity of pesticides, it
does not take into account cancer risk. We
did, however, perform a separate cancer risk
analysis.
In order to calculate lifetime cancer risk
for a given produce-country combination, we
used the cancer slope factor for each pesticide
(as available from the EPA) and assumed a
lifetime of exposure of one serving per day
for a 70-year lifetime. We multiplied that
risk by the probability of the pesticide being
on the item (i.e., percent of total samples
testing positive). Then, for each pesticide-produce-country combination, we added up the
cancer risk for all of the pesticides present in
the food to get a combined cancer risk score.
Ideally, the population should be exposed to
no excess cases of cancer from exposure to a
substance.
Typically, from a regulatory perspective, an
ideal cancer risk is considered to be no more
than one excess case of cancer in a population
of 1 million people exposed to the pesticide
over a lifetime. For this study, we adopted a
less strict public-health protection goal—a
more lenient risk tolerance of no more than
one excess case of cancer in 100,000 people
over a lifetime. Produce-country combinations with a combined cancer risk from pesticide residues of more than one in 100,000 are
denoted on our figures.
* for a 35 lb child
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 31
W
Produce DRIs: The Results
e used all available USDA PDP residue data to
calculate the FS-DRI for each produce item-country-production method combination, including data
from crop year 2013 that was released in December 2014.
For all foods, we based our rankings on the “Most Recent
Year” for which of PDP data are available.
How to Read and Understand
Consumer Reports’ Residue Guide
We categorized each produce-country-production type
combination into one of five categories discussed above.
The average FS-DRI score (referred from here on as DRI) for
all organic produce item-country combinations fell into the
“ low” or “very low” category. As a result of this finding and
because of the strict standards required to earn, and retain,
organic certification, and well-documented and significant
environmental benefits, we always recommend organic
produce as the best choice.
Fortunately, the majority of residues found in conventional produce items also fell into the “low” or “very
low” categories as well. Conventional items that fall into
the very low or low categories are roughly equivalent to
organic produce when comparing residue related risk.
For consumers who are mainly worried about exposure
to residues, these conventional products represent good
options, especially when available at a markedly lower
price. Still, we recommend organic as the best choice.
Relatively smaller proportions of produce items fall
into the “very high,” “high,” and “medium” categories.
Items in the “very high” category have a DRI score of
greater than 1. From a single serving of such items,
children would ingest pesticides associated with a DRI
risk level of 1 or higher (our “level of concern” that takes
into consideration EPA reference doses). Items in the
“high” risk category have a DRI score between 0.2 and 1.
For those items, children would reach a DRI of 1 with two
to five servings. Five servings of fruits and vegetables is
the typical amount recommended by the USDA. Items
in the moderate risk category have a score between 0.2
and 0.1. Children would reach a DRI of 1 after five to 10
servings.
Even for produce items that fall into one of the three
highest risk categories (“very high,” “high,” or “medium”),
there is often a lower risk (“low” or “very low”)
conventional produce option.
32 Pesticide Report March 2015
A
Limits to Choosing Produce
According Only to Pesticide
Residues and Risk
lthough the guide we created takes into account
the chronic toxicity and the cancer risk of the residues, our guide does not consider many other important
harmful effects of pesticides that consumers may want
to consider (nor does the EWG guide). For example, our
analysis does not take into account the well-known negative effects of the use of pesticides on farmworker health;
beneficial insects such as honeybees and other pollinators; adverse impacts on birds, fish, and other wildlife; or
the potential for low levels of pesticides to be endocrine
disruptors, triggering subtle but sometimes heritable
genetic mutations.
Given the pesticide-related as well as other environmental and soil health benefits of organic farming, we
always recommend certified organic food as the best choice.
Future iterations of this guide will attempt take these
additional concerns into consideration as well.
Using Our Charts That Follow
The figures display the risk categories (“very low” to
“very high”) into which different conventionally grown
produce item-country combinations fall. The risk categories are calculated for a 16-kilogram (35.2-pound)
child eating one serving of the item per day. For a 35.2pound child, eating one serving of a given very high-risk
produce-country item per day would lead them to their
maximum daily limit based on our level of concern (that
takes into consideration EPA reference doses). Though
the absolute risk would be lower for a consumer who
weighed more, the relative risk of each produce item and
country combination would be unchanged.
We have created two tables, one for fruits and one for
vegetables. If the excess cancer risk for a produce item-country
combination was greater than one in 100,000 exposed
people, that item was marked with footnote. Even though
all of the footnoted items were in the “high” category for
DRI score, because of the cancer risk consumers should
treat them as if they were in the “very high” category.
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 33
FRUIT
FRUIT
FOOD SAFETY & SUSTAINABILITY CENTER
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCE
ORGANIC
VERY LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
VERY HIGH
VEGETABLES
COMMODITY
ORGANIC
FOOD SAFETY & SUSTAINABILITY CENTER
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCE
VERY LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
VERY HIGH
Guatemala
Mexico
USA
Peaches
Chile, USA
Green Beans
Tangerines
Chile1, South Africa1,
USA, (Australia, Spain)
Sweet Bell
Peppers
USA
Mexico
Chile 1
Hot Peppers
USA
Mexico
Chile 1
Winter Squash
Plums
•
USA
Nectarines
Apples
USA
•
New Zealand
USA
Strawberries
Cantaloupe
USA, (Mexico)
•
Honduras, Mexico
Costa Rica,
Guatemala
Cranberries
USA
USA
Mangoes
•
Pears
•
Argentina, USA
Oranges
•
Chile, South Africa,
USA
Cherries
•
USA
Grapefruit
•
USA
Watermelon
•
Mexico
Guatemala
Guatemala
Honduras, Mexico,
USA
Uruguay
Argentina, Canada,
Chile, USA
Brazil
Cucumbers
•
•
Mexico, USA
Guatemala, Peru
Tomatoes
Canada
Cherry
Tomatoes
•
Celery
•
Greens, Kale
Potatoes
Asparagus
Raspberries
•
Mexico, USA
Spinach
Apple Sauce
•
Canada, USA
Eggplant
Greens, Collard
Cauliflower
Cilantro
Green Onions
Broccoli
USA
Mexico
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
USA
Canada
USA
Mexico
USA
Peru
Honduras
USA
Mexico
Mexico, USA
Mexico
•
Mexico, USA
•
•
•
•
USA
Mexico
Mexico
USA
USA
Mexico
Canada
USA
•
Greece, South
Africa, USA
Cabbage
•
Canada, Mexico,
USA
Pineapples
•
Costa Rica,
Ecuador,
Mexico, USA
Sweet Corn
Mexico, USA
Plums, Dried
(Prunes)
•
USA
•
•
•
• RECOMMENDED BUY
Avocado
Onion
1 Cancer risk greater than 1/100,000
For countries in parenthesis, average score placed country in displayed category,
but sample size was small and there is less certainty.
Mexico, USA
USA
Peaches,
Canned
ALWAYS BUY
USA
Mexico
•
Mushrooms
Mexico
Canada, Mexico,
USA
Belize, Brazil,
Guatemala,
Jamaica, Mexico,
USA
Papaya
Mexico
USA
Carrots
Columbia, Costa
Rica, Ecuador,
Guatemala,
Honduras, Mexico
USA
Sweet Potatoes
Lettuce
USA
Mexico, USA
Snap Peas
Chile, Mexico, Peru,
USA
•
Canada
USA
•
Raisins
USA
Mexico
Grapes
•
Honduras, Mexico
•
•
Bananas
Guatemala
Summer
Squash
Blueberries
Columbia, Costa
Rica, Ecuador,
Guatemala,
Honduras, Mexico
•
•
Chile, Mexico, Peru
ALWAYS BUY
Peru, USA
• RECOMMENDED BUY
DRI Scores Have Decreased Over Time
DRI
scores are a measure of both the
amount of pesticide residues found on
produce and their toxicity. Fortunately, the
trend in total DRI score for all conventional
domestic produce items over time shows that
DRI scores have decreased dramatically over
the past 20 years, especially for domestically
grown produce. As discussed previously,
much of this reduction in U.S.-grown produce
can be attributed to the FQPA.
Looking at individual produce items over
time provides interesting insights into the use
of pesticides. Some produce items’ FS-DRI
scores have not changed much over time.
For example, domestic green beans have
remained in the very high-risk category
almost every year since testing began in 1992.
Other produce DRIs have changed significantly since passage of the FQPA. Peaches
are the most dramatic. Although conventional peaches from all origins are still in our
high-risk category, their total DRI score has
dropped significantly. Up until the testing
for the year 2000, the main pesticide residue
contributing to the DRI score for peaches
was methyl parathion. That pesticide is one
of the most potent in the organophosphate
family. The EPA accepted the voluntary
cancellation of the chemical for use on many
crops, including peaches, in 1999. Today the
High-Risk Pesticides
T
he majority of the known risk from
pesticide-residue exposure is the result of
only a few commonly found pesticides. There
have been significant decreases in DRI scores
over time, but there is still room for significant improvement, and today’s relatively
high-risk chemicals represent important
targets for reduction.
The single most important contributor to
toxic pesticide exposure and FS-DRI risk is an
organophosphate chemical called methamidophos. Methamidophos residues also appear
in food after applications of another organophosphate insecticide called acephate (methamidophos is a major breakdown product of
acephate). Over the past 20 years the total
DRI score for that chemical has remained relatively constant (the overall trend is important, and year-to-year variations may be the
result of the differing mix of produce items
tested each year).
Interestingly, all methamidophos uses were
cancelled by the EPA in 2009 after registrants
voluntarily requested an end to all food uses.
Despite that, residues of methamidophos
remain a concern. Acephate is another pesticide whose residues have been a relatively
large contributor to the total DRI score each
year over the past decade. Methamidophos
FS-DRI Domestic Peaches 1992-2013
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
2000
2001
2002
2003
2006
2007
2008
2013
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
majority of the peach DRI score is caused by
residues of fludioxonil, a fungicide often used
post-harvest.
Other commonly consumed crops that
have also seen relatively large decreases in
DRI score over the years (though not as dramatic as peaches) include pears and apples, on
which methyl parathion was also commonly
used. Grape DRI scores have dropped steadily
from around 2.2 in 1993 to less than 0.02 in
recent years.
residues are a major contributor to the
high DRI scores for green beans, sweet bell
peppers, and hot peppers, and are also commonly found on other vegetables.
The carbamate insecticide oxamyl is
another large contributor to total DRI scores
during recent years. Oxamyl is used on a
variety of vegetables and is one of the top
contributors to the DRI for sweet bell peppers
and summer squash.
Fungicides are another important class of
chemicals that are significant contributors
to total FS-DRI scores. Those pesticides are
often applied after harvest to tree fruits, especially stone fruits such as peaches, tangerines,
nectarines, and plums, as well as citrus fruits.
The most common ones found are fludioxonil, iprodione, and imazalil.
Although not permitted in organic production, post-harvest fungicides leave residues
that are sometimes detected on some organic
produce. Those residues may be the result
of cross-contamination in packing plants in
which both organic and conventional produce
is cleaned, packed, and shipped. Fungicide
residue levels on organic produce are much
lower, and present lower risk, compared with
conventional produce.
Total Methamidophos DRI For All Produce 1992 to 2013
3
FsDRI for Apples, Grapes, and Pears 1992-2010
2.5
Apples
2.5
Grapes
2
Pears
2.0
Methimidophos Domestic
Methimidophos Imported
1.5
1
1.5
0.5
0
1.0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
0.5
0.0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2009
2010
E
Behind the Label
ven when a fruit or vegetable carries a low residue risk to consumers, pesticides could
have been used to produce it, with potential negative impacts on farmworkers, rural residents, wildlife, pollinators, air, soil and water. But there are many labels that can help consumers make better choices when it comes to how farms and pesticide use are managed. The table
that follows shows which labels are verified, which labels are backed by standards that prohibit
or limit the number of toxic pesticides and require meaningful Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) practices. The table also shows whether the standards behind the label allow, prohibit, or
restrict the use of 18 specific pesticides of concern.
36 Pesticide Report March 2015
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 37






USDA Organic

+


-
Demeter
Biodynamic

+


-
Rainforest
Alliance

-
-
-


+


-





Conventional +
Whole Foods
Responsibly
Grown - Good
-

-


Conventional +
Whole Foods
Responsibly
Grown - Better
-
-

-

Conventional +
Whole Foods
Responsibly
Grown - Best
-
-

-

Certified
Naturally Grown
-
+



Eco Apple certified by the
IPM Institute





Eco Stone Fruit
- certified by the
IPM Institute





THIABENDAZOLE



IMAZALIL



IPRODIONE



LABELS
FLUDIOXONIL
Do standards
require testing
foods for pesticide
residues?
METHYL BROMIDE
Do standards
require least-toxic
options be used
first?
1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
Do standards
require nonchemical
pest prevention &
management?
METAM SODIUM
Is it verified?
Do standards
prohibit toxic
pesticides?
PHOSMET
 No
PERMETHRIN
 •
OXAMYL
Sometimes, or encouraged but not required
•
ACETAMIPRID
-
No list of prohibited
pesticides, or list is
minimal
YES
IMIDACLOPRID
 No verification
pesticides are
- Some
prohibited
•
ACEPHATE
Verification, but not
independent
Yes
ALDICARB
-

Do standards prohibit the use of the following pesticide?
CHLORPYRIFOS

Yes, standards have a
comprehensive list of
prohibited pesticides
2,4-D

Yes, independent
verification with
on-site inspection
GLYPHOSATE
FOOD SAFETY &
SUSTAINABILITY CENTER
ATRAZINE
LABELS GUIDE
Yes, standards have a
comprehensive list
+ very
of prohibited pesticides
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NO
RESTRICTED USE
General Claims
Conventional /No label
Natural
Pesticide Free
Environmental
Sustainability Labels
Organic + Whole Foods
Responsibly Grown Good, Better, Best
Conventional +
Whole Foods
Responsibly
Grown - Unrated
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Visit greenerchoices.org for more information
LABELS GUIDE
PHOSMET
METAM SODIUM
1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
METHYL BROMIDE
FLUDIOXONIL
IPRODIONE
IMAZALIL
THIABENDAZOLE
 No
PERMETHRIN
 OXAMYL
No verification
 ACETAMIPRID
-
No list of prohibited
pesticides, or list is
minimal
•
IMIDACLOPRID
pesticides are
- Some
prohibited
•
ACEPHATE
Sometimes, or encouraged but not required
but not
- Verification,
independent
•
ALDICARB
Yes
CHLORPYRIFOS

Do standards prohibit the use of the following pesticide?
2,4-D

Yes, standards have a
comprehensive list of
prohibited pesticides
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
YES
NO
RESTRICTED USE
Is it verified?
Do standards
prohibit toxic
pesticides?
Do standards
require nonchemical
pest prevention &
management?
Do standards
require least-toxic
options be used
first?
Do standards
require testing
foods for pesticide
residues?
Food Alliance


-
-

Stemilt
Responsible
Choice





SCS Pesticide
Residue Free





Salmon Safe





SCS Sustainably
Grown




-





• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fair Trade
Certified


-
-

Fairtrade
International


-


Fair for Life

-
-
-

Food Justice
Certified





Fair Food
Program





Responsibly
Grown.
Farmworker
Assured




-
Whole Foods
- Whole Trade
Guarantee


-


•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LABELS
BASED ON GOVERNMENT
LIMIT-OF-DETECTION PROTOCOLS

Yes, independent
verification with
on-site inspection
ATRAZINE
FOOD SAFETY &
SUSTAINABILITY CENTER
GLYPHOSATE
Yes, standards have a
comprehensive list
+ very
of prohibited pesticides
Non GMO Labels
Non-GMO
Project Verified
Social Responsibility
Labels
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Visit greenerchoices.org for more information
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stretching Your Produce and Organic Dollar
O
rganic food — produced on organic farms without the use of most pesticides — is better for
your health and for the environment. Organic produce also generally costs more than conventional, so here are some tips on how to fit organic in your budget.
☛ Buy whole foods and process at home.
Whole and unprocessed organic foods are
often less expensive than their processed nonorganic counterparts. Carrots are a perfect
example: “Baby carrot” is just a fancy name
for a carrot that has been peeled and cut into
pieces for you. But if you don’t mind doing
the peeling and cutting yourself, organic
whole carrots will often cost less than the
nonorganic “baby” variety. The same is often
true for organic whole heads of lettuce vs.
the bagged nonorganic kind, whole organic
apples vs. sliced nonorganic, etc.
☛ A note about pest control in
organic production. Some pesticides
are derived from plants, bacteria, or
other natural sources. Those pesticides
are allowed in organic production, unless
they pose potential harm to human
health or the environment.246 For example, even though arsenic and lead are
“natural” substances, pesticides containing those substances are prohibited.247
Natural pesticides that are permitted,
such as those derived from the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis and the botanical extract pyrethrum, can be used only
as a last resort after other methods of
pest control have failed.248
42 Pesticide Report March 2015
Integrated Pest Management.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an
approach to managing pests that uses a
variety of methods, including cultural and
biological methods. However, the use of
chemical pesticides is also a component
of IPM. IPM’s acceptance of chemical
pesticides means it is significantly different from organic management, which
prohibits nearly every chemical pesticide. IPM is a step in the right direction,
though. It aims to solve pest problems
while minimizing risks to people and the
environment, using chemical pesticides
only when needed. By scouting for pests,
monitoring and keeping records of pests,
growers can choose to use pesticides
only when pest numbers are determined
to exceed acceptable levels. IPM also
aims to use pesticides with lower toxicity
and risk before turning to pesticides with
higher known toxicity. Unfortunately, there
is no one way to practice IPM and some
producers are more rigorous in its application than others.
Buy in bulk. It’s often thought of as a
cost-saving measure when buying grains,
dried beans, nuts, and other grocery items,
but buying in bulk can also save you money
on fresh or dried fruits and vegetables. Look
for dried fruit in the bulk section of your
store. Buying fresh produce in bulk can save
money as well. Many stores offer organic
apples, oranges, carrots, avocados, and other
organic produce in bags, which can cost
less on a per-pound basis than buying loose
produce.
☛ Buy in season. Fruits and vegetables are
much less expensive when you buy them in
season. Stock up during the summer and fall
months, when produce is abundant and prices
are lower, and preserve them for the winter
and early spring months. Canning, freezing,
and drying are good options.
 Find a farmers market. They’re are a
great way to buy in season, directly from
local farmers.
 Or join an organic CSA. CSA stands for
“community supported agriculture.” When
you join a CSA farm, you will receive a
weekly share of the harvest, and you’re likely
to spend much less money on fruits and vegetables than if you bought those items at the
store. You’ll be supporting local farmers, and
you’ll probably end up with more vegetables
and fruits than you know what to do with.
Consider preserving them for the winter
months by canning, drying, or freezing.
☛ Buy frozen. If you didn’t have the
chance to freeze produce at home during
the summer, look for frozen options in the
store. Many organic fruits and vegetables are
available in the freezer section of most stores
year-round and can cost less than the fresh
nonorganic options. Because they are frozen
immediately after harvest, nutrient levels in
frozen organic fruits and vegetables are comparable to, or even better than, those of fresh
produce that has been shipped many miles
and arrives less than fresh at the store.
☛
Or buy dried. In the winter months,
when certain kinds of organic fruits and vegetables are either unavailable or too expensive, look for their dried versions instead. An
additional benefit of buying organic dried
fruit is that sulfite preservatives—often used
in conventional dried fruits—are prohibited
in organic foods.
☛
Replace processed snack foods
with organic fruits and vegetables. USDA
researchers have found that some healthy
foods, including fresh produce, can often cost
less than unhealthy foods such as sweet and
salty snacks.249 To fit organic fruits and vegetables in your food budget, consider cutting
out unhealthy sweet and salty snack foods.
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 43
Cleaning Produce
W
hen organic options are not available or affordable, consum-
ers can take certain actions to lower their exposure to pesticide
residues.
➜➜
Wash fruits and vegetables thoroughly under running
water.250 Make sure you wash for 30 seconds to 1 minute, and
gently rub the produce to dislodge the residues.251
➜➜
Produce with firm edible skin can be scrubbed with a clean
produce brush.252 Wash produce brushes regularly with hot
soapy water or in a dishwasher and dry completely. And
consider not peeling since nutrients are in the peel too.
➜➜
Wash produce before removing inedible peels to prevent
pesticide residue contamination on your hands and on the
edible parts.253
➜➜
Remove the outer leaves of heads of lettuce or cabbages,
because the outer leaves are likely to have higher levels of
pesticide residues.254, 255
➜➜
If you use citrus peel (such as for zesting), consider buying
organic.
➜➜
Wash organic produce as well. Organic regulations prohibit
the use of synthetic pesticides, but synthetic pesticides used
on neighboring conventional farms could contaminate
organic crops. Washing eliminates more than just pesticide residues; it also removes dirt and potentially harmful
microorganisms that might contaminate.
44 Pesticide Report March 2015
T
Conclusion
he reliance on toxic pesticides to produce food is
neither safe nor sustainable. Since living organisms
adapt, toxic pesticides eventually lose their effectiveness. This leads chemical companies to develop different
pesticides to attack resistant weeds and pests — pesticides
that are perhaps more toxic, or perhaps toxic simply in a
different way. But while new pesticides can control pests
for a while, it is never a long-term solution. Rather, pesticides — the chemicals that are supposed to be a solution
— turn into problems themselves, as their toxic effects
on non-target populations, including humans, become
apparent.
Given the growing body of scientific evidence pointing
to harm, we believe that the costs are too high and do not
justify the short-term benefits of controlling pests with
toxic chemicals.
We urge people to eat several servings of fruits and
vegetables daily. Whenever available and affordable,
we urge people to choose the most safe and sustainably
farmed options, using our DRI/residues guide and labels
guide. By using our guides and making informed purchases, consumers can protect themselves and support
farmers who are reducing their pesticide use, which is
better for human health and the environment. 
Consumer Reports’
Food Safety and Sustainability Center’s
Pesticide Policy Recommendations
Recommendations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA should ban or take immediate action on the riskiest pesticides.
We agree with the canceling of methamidophos in 2009. However, methamidophos is also the
breakdown product of acephate, and combined, these two chemicals make up the largest contribution to dietary risk. Acephate, along with other major pesticide contributors to risk such as iprodione,
fludioxonil, imazalil, and oxamyl should be fully banned. Other pesticides we would like discontinued include methyl bromide, chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates.
EPA should take immediate action on neonicotinoids.
Many crops, especially fruits and vegetables, face an uncertain future with the severe decline of
pollinators. While many factors are at play, mounting evidence implicates neonicotinoid pesticides
in their decline. Thus far, the EPA has delayed meaningful action in the name of more research. We
believe there is enough information to take action now. Research should continue, but in the meantime, the EPA should proceed immediately with cancellation or reclassification proceedings, utilizing the “imminent hazard” provision, and suspend the use of these pesticides while proceedings take
place.
EPA should complete the delisting of arsenical pesticides.
Pesticides containing organic forms of arsenic are still permitted for use on golf courses, rights of
way, sod farms and cotton crops. The use of these pesticides contributes to the contamination of our
environment with this dangerous heavy metal. The EPA should deregister the use of these pesticides
immediately.
EPA should require public access to all ingredients in pesticides
and easy access to current registration status.
While active ingredients in pesticides must be disclosed, this requirement does not apply to “inert”
ingredients. Only full disclosure of all ingredients on pesticide labels will enable the public and independent researchers to begin evaluating the full range of synergistic effects. The EPA should issue
new rules concerning disclosure of inert ingredients and should do so immediately. In addition, the
EPA should provide an easy-to-search database of current pesticide registration status on its website.
Recommendations for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA):
USDA should expand pesticide residue testing in the PDP.
The USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) is an important tool for informing the public about pesticide residues on produce and is used by the EPA for understanding pesticide exposure and setting
tolerances. Currently, the USDA does not test for some widely used pesticides such as glyphosate and
should.
USDA should protect and promote organic standards and
meaningful integrated pest management (IPM).
Conservation incentives should promote organic production methods and meaningful IPM—where
chemical pest controls are utilized as last resorts and require review and approval. The USDA should
ensure the highest integrity in organics including minimizing the approval of exempted materials,
such as pesticides.
Recommendations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):
FDA should expand and improve pesticide residue testing and enforcement.
The FDA is charged with enforcing pesticide tolerance levels on fruits and vegetables. According to
a 2014 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the FDA does not regularly test
for some of the most common pesticides such as glyphosate, 2,4-D and methyl bromide. In addition,
the FDA tests only a very small percentage of both imported and domestic fruits and vegetables. The
FDA should begin regularly testing for those chemicals identified by the GAO, and should increase
its sampling of both domestic and imported produce.
EPA should improve the science behind tolerance limits.
Tolerance levels should incorporate the best available science, including potential toxicological and
health endpoints that are not included today. Those include stricter tests for more immunologic and
neurobehavioral endpoints. Further, the EPA’s program for incorporating endocrine-disrupting
effects into tolerances and pesticide approvals should be fully implemented as the FQPA directed in
1996. Epigenetic effects should also be incorporated when it becomes feasible.
EPA should rein in emergency exemptions and conditional registrations.
EPA “allows the use of a pesticide for an unregistered use for a limited time if EPA determines that
emergency conditions exist.” The EPA can currently grant exemptions with or without public comment or granting public access to supporting data. Emergency exemptions should only be granted
for a finite period of time and after three years, should not be allowed to continue, especially when
there are alternatives, including integrated pest management, crop diversification, and organic production practices.
Conditional registration means that the use of the pesticide can be allowed while the EPA waits for
additional data to be submitted by the registrant. This raises concerns about using materials where
there is insufficient safety information. Many pesticides were first brought on the market through
this pathway, including the neonicotinoid pesticide, imidacloprid. While the EPA has already started
to close this loophole, there is still room for continued improvement.
46 Pesticide Report March 2015
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 47
References
Oyebode, O., Gordon-Dseagu, V., Walker, A. and Mindell, J.S. (2014) Fruit and vegetable consumption and all-cause, cancer and
CVD mortality: analysis of Health Survey for England data. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Published online first:
March 31, 2014. doi:10.1136/jech-2013-203500
2
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. (2011). Pesticide industry sales and usage, 2006-2007 market
estimates. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/. Page 12.
3
Consumer Reports National Research Center. (2014) Food labels survey, 2014 nationally-representative phone survey. Retrieved
from http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/ConsumerReportsFoodLabelingSurveyJune2014.pdf. Last accessed on March 4, 2015.
4
The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 7 USC 6504(1)
5
Lu, C., Toepel, K., Irish, R., Fenske, R.A., Barr, D.B. and R. Bravo. (2006). Organic diets significantly lower children’s dietary
exposure to organophosphorus pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(2): 260-263.
Oates, L., Cohen, M., Braun, L., Schembri, A. and R. Taskova. (2014). Reduction in urinary organophosphate pesticide metabolites
in adults after a week-long organic diet. Environmental Research 132: 105-111.
7
Curl, C.L., Beresford, S.A.A., Fenske, R.A., Fitzpatrick, A.L., Chensheng, L., Nettleton, J.A. and Kaufman, J.D. (2015). Estimating
Pesticide Exposure from Dietary Intake and Organic Food Choices: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Environmental
Health Perspectives. Retrieved from http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408197/. doi:10.1289/ehp.1408197.
8
Palumbi, S.R. (2001). Humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force. Science 293(5536): 1786-1790.
9
Committee on the Future Role of Pesticides in US Agriculture, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Board on Environmental
Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council (2000). The future role of pesticides in US agriculture. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press. Page 6.
10
Committee on the Future Role of Pesticides in US Agriculture, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council (2000). The future role of pesticides in US agriculture. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press. Pages 56-57.
11
Vandenberg, L.N., Colborn, T., Hayes, T.B., Heindel, J.J., Jacobs Jr., D.R., Lee, D-H., Shioda, T., Soto, A.M., vom Saal, F.S.,
Welshons, W.V., Zoeller, R.T. and Myers, J.P. (2012). Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and
nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocrine Reviews 33(3): 378-455.
12
Grandjean, P., and Landrigan, P. J. (2014). Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology 13(3): 330338.
13
Consumer Reports (November 2012). Arsenic in your food: our findings show a real need for federal standards for this toxin.
Retrieved from http://consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/11/arsenic-in-your-food/index.htm.
14
Peryea, F.J. and Kammereck, R. (1997). Phosphate-enhanced movement of arsenic out of lead arsenate-contaminated topsoil and
through uncontaminated subsoil. Water Air and Soil Pollution 93(1): 243-254.
15
Hong, Y. S., Song, K. H., and Chung, J. Y. (2014). Health Effects of Chronic Arsenic Exposure. Journal of Preventive Medicine and
Public Health 47(5): 245.
16
Consumer Reports (November 2012). Arsenic in your food: our findings show a real need for federal standards for this toxin.
Retrieved from http://consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/11/arsenic-in-your-food/index.htm.
17
Vogt, R., Bennett, D., Cassady, D., Frost, J., Ritz, B. and Hertz-Picciotto, I. (2012). Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food
contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment. Environmental Health 11: 83-97.
18
Vogt, R., Bennett, D., Cassady, D., Frost, J., Ritz, B. and Hertz-Picciotto, I. (2012). Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food
contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment. Environmental Health 11: 83-97.
19
Bienkowski, B. (2014, July 28). Songbirds dying from DDT in Michigan yards; Superfund site blamed. Environmental Health News.
Retrieved from http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2014/jul/dead-robins.
20
Benbrook, C. (2011). The Organic Center’s “Dietary Risk Index,” tracking relative pesticide risks in foods and beverages. The
Organic Center. Retrieved from http://organic-center.org/reportfiles/DRIfinal_09-10-2011.pdf.
21
Sanzani, S. M., Schena, L. and Ippolito, A. (2014). Effectiveness of phenolic compounds against citrus green mould. Molecules
19(8): 12500-12508.
22
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1996, October) Chlorpropham: RED Facts. EPA-738-F-96—O23.
23
Paulsrud, B.E., et al. (2001). Seed Treatment: Oregon Pesticide Applicator Training Manual. p. 1. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.
gov/oda/shared/documents/publications/pesticidesparc/pesticideapplicatorseedtreatmenttrainingmanual.pdf.
24
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, September). What are Soil Fumigants? [Webpage] Available online at http://www2.
epa.gov/soil-fumigants/what-are-soil-fumigants.
25
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. (2011). Pesticide industry sales and usage, 2006-2007 market
estimates. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/. Page 12.
26
Majewski, M.S., Coupe, R.H., Foreman, W.T. and P.D. Capel. (2014). Pesticides in Mississippi air and rain: a comparison between
1995 and 2007. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 33(6): 1283-93.
27
Ward, M.H., Lubin, J., Giglierano, J., Colt, J.S., Wolter, C., Bekiroglu, N., Camann, D., Hartge, P. and J.R. Nuckols. (2006). Proximity
to crops and residential exposure to agricultural herbicides in Iowa. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(6): 893-897.
28
Hladik, M.L., Kolpin, D.W. and K.M. Kuivila. (2014). Widespread occurrence of neonicotinoid insecticides in streams in a high corn
and soybean producing region, USA. Environmental Pollution 193C: 189-196.
29
Chang, F.C., Simcik, M.F. and P.D. Capel. (2011). Occurrence and fate of the herbicide glyphosate and its degradate amino
methylphosphonic acid in the atmosphere. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 30(3): 548-55.
30
Bouchard, M. F., Chevrier, J., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., Vedar, M., Calderon, N., Trujillo, C., Johnson, C., Bradman, A., Barr, D.B.
and Eskenazi, B. (2011). Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 119(8), 1189–1195. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003185.
31
Curl, C.L., Beresford, S.A.A., Fenske, R.A., Fitzpatrick, A.L., Chensheng, L., Nettleton, J.A. and Kaufman, J.D. (2015). Estimating
1
This project was made possible in part
by the generosity
of the following donors to Consumer Reports'
Food Safety and Sustainability Center:
Diane Archer & Stephen Presser
Joe and Barbara Ellis
Jessica Guff
Christopher Rothko & Lori Cohen
Ben Serebin
To contribute to the Food Safety & Sustainability Center
and support projects like these, please visit
www.greenerchoices.org/getengaged
48 Pesticide Report March 2015
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 49
Pesticide Exposure from Dietary Intake and Organic Food Choices: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Environmental
Health Perspectives. Retrieved from http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408197/. doi:10.1289/ehp.1408197.
32 Roberts, J.R., Karr, C.J.; Council on Environmental Health. (2012). Technical Report: Pesticide exposure in children. Pediatrics
130(6): e1765-e1788.
33
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014, February). Pesticide Data Program. Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2012 [Data file].
Retrieved from www.ams.usda.gov/pdp.
34
Gilliom, R.J., Barbash, J.E., Crawford, C.G., Hamilton, P.A., Martin, J.D., Nakagaki, N., Nowell, L.H., Scott, J.C., Stackelberg,
P.E., Thelin, G.P. and Wolock, D.M. (2006). Pesticides in the nation’s streams and ground water, 1992-2001. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/pdf/circ1291.pdf.
35
Smallling, K.L., Reeves, R., Muths, E., Vandever, M., Battaglin, W.A., Hladik, M.L. and Pierce, C.L. (2015) Pesticide concentrations
in frog tissue and wetland habitats in a landscape dominated by agriculture. Science of the Total Environment 502: 80-90.
36
Roberts, J.R., Karr, C.J.; Council on Environmental Health. (2012). Technical Report: Pesticide exposure in children. Pediatrics
130(6): e1765-e1788.
37
Leffall, L.D., Jr., and Kripke, M.L. (2010). 2008-2009 Annual Report: President’s Cancer Panel: Reducing Environmental Cancer
Risk: What we can do now. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.
Retrieved from http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf.
38
Roberts, J.R., Karr, C.J.; Council on Environmental Health. (2012). Technical Report: Pesticide exposure in children. Pediatrics
130(6): e1765-e1788.
39
Roberts, J.R., Karr, C.J.; Council on Environmental Health. (2012). Technical Report: Pesticide exposure in children. Pediatrics
130(6): e1765-e1788.
40
Leffall, L.D., Jr., and Kripke, M.L. (2010). 2008-2009 Annual Report: President’s Cancer Panel: Reducing Environmental Cancer
Risk: What we can do now. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.
Retrieved from http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf.
41
Leffall, L.D., Jr., and Kripke, M.L. (2010). 2008-2009 Annual Report: President’s Cancer Panel: Reducing Environmental Cancer
Risk: What we can do now. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.
Retrieved from http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf.
42
Leffall, L.D., Jr., and Kripke, M.L. (2010). 2008-2009 Annual Report: President’s Cancer Panel: Reducing Environmental Cancer
Risk: What we can do now. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.
Retrieved from http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf. Last accessed on
February 11, 2015. Page 45.
43
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, October 2). Office of Pesticide Programs. Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic
Potential. Retrieved from http://npic.orst.edu/chemicals_evaluated.pdf. Last accessed on February 27, 2015.
44
Environmental Protection Agency. (2014) 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions. Federal
Register 79(53): 15444-15531. Page 15447.
45
Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, January 30). Laws and Regulations [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/regulating/laws.htm.
46
Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, January 30). Laws and Regulations [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/regulating/laws.htm.
47
21 USC 346a
48
Environmental Protection Agency. (2014) 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions. Federal
Register 79(53): 15444-15531. Page 15451.
49
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. (2006). Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Chlorpyrifos. Page 96.
50
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. (2006). Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Chlorpyrifos. Page 96.
51
Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.). About EPA: Our mission and what we do [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.
gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do. Last accessed on February 13, 2015.
52
Environmental Protection Agency. (2014) 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions. Federal
Register 79(53): 15444-15531. Page 15451.
53
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, May 9) Setting tolerances for pesticide residues in foods [Webpage] Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/stprf.htm. Last accessed on March 4, 2015.
54
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007, April 5) Assessing health risks from pesticides [Webpage] Retrieved from http://www.
epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. Last accessed on March 4, 2015.
55
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, February). Pesticide Registration: Data Requirements. [Webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/data-requirements. Last accessed on February 27, 2015.
56
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, February). Pesticide Registration: Data Requirements. [Webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/data-requirements. Last accessed on February 27, 2015.
57
Bergman, A., Heindel, J.J., Jobling, S., Kidd, S.A. and Zoeller, R.T. (2012) State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals 2012. World Health Organization and United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/
endocrine/en/. Page ix.
58
National Pesticide Information Center. Oregon State University and Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). DDT - General Fact
Sheet. Retrieved from http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ddtgen.pdf.
59
Colborn, T. and. L.E. Carroll. (2007). Scholarly Review - Pesticides, Sexual Development, Reproduction, and Fertility: Current
Perspective and Future Direction. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 13: 1078-1110. Page 1104.
andenberg, L.N., Colborn, T., Hayes, T.B., Heindel, J.J., Jacobs Jr., D.R., Lee, D-H., Shioda, T., Soto, A.M., vom Saal, F.S., Welshons,
W.V., Zoeller, R.T. and J.P. Myers. (2012). Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose
responses. Endocrine Reviews 33(3): 378-455.
61
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010, May). Fact Sheet:
Endocrine Disruptors [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/endocrine_disruptors_508.pdf.
50 Pesticide Report March 2015
Monosson, E. (2005). Chemical mixtures: considering the evolution of toxicology and chemical assessment. Environmental Health
Perspectives 113(4): 383-390.
63
Cole, T.B., Jansen, K., Park, S., Li, W-F., Furlong, C.E. and Costa, L.G. (2010). The toxicity of mixtures of specific
organophosphorus compounds is modulated by Paraoxonase 1 status. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 660: 47-60.
64
Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., de Vendomois, J.S. and Seralini, G-E. (2014). Major pesticides are more toxic to human cells than their
declared active principles. BioMed Research International 2014. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/179691.
65
Monosson, E. (2005). Chemical mixtures: considering the evolution of toxicology and chemical assessment. Environmental Health
Perspectives 113(4): 383-390. Page 384.
66
Monosson, E. (2005). Chemical mixtures: considering the evolution of toxicology and chemical assessment. Environmental Health
Perspectives 113(4): 383-390. Page 383.
67
Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., de Vendomois, J.S. and Seralini, G-E. (2014). Major pesticides are more toxic to human cells than their
declared active principles. BioMed Research International 2014. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/179691.
68
Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., de Vendomois, J.S. and Seralini, G-E. (2014). Major pesticides are more toxic to human cells than their
declared active principles. BioMed Research International 2014. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/179691.
69
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Pesticides: Regulating Pesticides: Rulemaking Underway Related to Disclosure of
All Pesticide Ingredients. [Webpage.] Available at http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/inertdisclosure.html; but see Rodriguez, J.C.
(2014, October). EPA Wants 72 Inert Chemicals Out As Pesticide Ingredients. Law 360. Retrieved from http://www.law360.com/
articles/589944/epa-wants-72-inert-chemicals-out-as-pesticide-ingredients.
70
Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Imidacloprid Summary Document Registration Review: Initial Docket December 2008.
Docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844. Retrieved from www.regulations.gov. Page 5 of 13.
71
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014, February). Pesticide Data Program. Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2012 [Data file].
Retrieved from www.ams.usda.gov/pdp. Appendix I. Page 2 of 4.
72
Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, May 9). Types of Pesticides [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
about/types.htm.
73
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011, June 22) Requests to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations: Dicofol.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0220-0017.
74
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014, January 15). DDT and other organochlorine insecticides. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/
contaminants/info/ddt.html.
75
Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, May 9). Types of Pesticides [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
about/types.htm.
76
Fukuto, T.R. (1990) Mechanism of action of organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 87:
245-254.
77
Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, May 9). Types of Pesticides [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
about/types.htm.
78
Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, May 9). Types of Pesticides [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
about/types.htm.
79
Henry, M., Beguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J. F., Aupinel, P., ... and Decourtye, A. (2012). A common pesticide decreases
foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science, 336(6079), 348-350.
80
Committee on Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, Board on Agriculture and Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (1993). Pesticides in the diets of infants and children.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Page 3.
81
Roberts, J.R., Karr, C.J.; Council on Environmental Health (2012). Technical Report: Pesticide exposure in children. Pediatrics
130(6): e1765-e1788. Page e1781.
82
Committee on Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, Board on Agriculture and Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (1993). Pesticides in the diets of infants and children.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
83
Costa, L.G., Giordano, G., Cole, T.B., Marsillach, J and Furlong, C.E. (2013). Paraoxonase 1 (PON1) as a genetic determinant of
susceptibility to organophosphate toxicity. Toxicology 10(307): 115-122.
84
Furlong, C.E., Holland, N., Richter, R.J., Bradman, A., Ho, A. and Eskenazi, B. (2006). PON1 status of farmworker mothers and
children as a predictor of organophosphate sensitivity. Pharmacogenetics and Genomics 16(3): 183-190.
85
Eskenazi, B., Marks, A.R., Bradman, A., Harley, K., Barr, D.B., Johnson, C., Morga, N., and Jewell, N.P. (2007). Organophosphate
pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican-American children. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(5): 792-798.
Page 792.
86
Cole, T.B., Jansen, K., Park, S., Li, W-F., Furlong, C.E. and Costa, L.G. (2010). The toxicity of mixtures of specific
organophosphorus compounds is modulated by Paraoxonase 1 status. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 660: 47-60.
87
Committee on Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, Board on Agriculture and Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (1993). Pesticides in the diets of infants and children.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Pages 65, 66 and 68.
88
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (2011). Pesticide industry sales and usage, 2006-2007 market
estimates. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/. Page 14.
89
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs (2006). Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Chlorpyrifos.
90
Eskenazi, B., Bradman, A. and Castorina, R. (1999). Exposures of children to organophosphate pesticides and their potential
adverse health effects. Environmental Health Perspectives 107(suppl. 3): 409-419.
91
Reigart, J.R. and Roberts, J.R. (1999). Recognition and management of pesticide poisonings. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/healthcare/handbook/handbook.htm. Page 34.
92
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Organophosphates [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/
research/research4_s3_s5.cfm.
62
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 51
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Organophosphates [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/
research/research4_s3_s5.cfm.
94
Bouchard, M. F., Chevrier, J., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., Vedar, M., Calderon, N., Trujillo, C., Johnson, C., Bradman, A., Barr, D.B.
and Eskenazi, B. (2011). Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 119(8), 1189–1195. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003185.
95
Kimura-Kuroda, J., Komuta, Y., Kuroda, Y., Hayashi, M. and Kawano, H. (2012). Nicotine-like effects of the neonicotinoid
insecticides acetamiprid and imidacloprid on cerebellar neurons from neonatal rats. PLoS ONE 7(2): e32432. doi:10.1371/journal.
93
pone.0032432.
Kimura-Kuroda, J., Komuta, Y., Kuroda, Y., Hayashi, M. and Kawano, H. (2012). Nicotine-like effects of the neonicotinoid
insecticides acetamiprid and imidacloprid on cerebellar neurons from neonatal rats. PLoS ONE 7(2): e32432. doi:10.1371/journal.
96
pone.0032432.
EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues). (2013). Scientific Opinion on the developmental
neurotoxicity potential of acetamiprid and imidacloprid. EFSA Journal 11(12):3471-3518. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3471.
98
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. (2011). Pesticide industry sales and usage, 2006-2007 market
estimates. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/. Page 16.
99
Bouchard, M. F., Chevrier, J., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., Vedar, M., Calderon, N., Trujillo, C., Johnson, C., Bradman, A., Barr, D.B.
and Eskenazi, B. (2011). Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 119(8), 1189–1195. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003185.
100
Environmental Protection Agency. (February 4, 2014) Pesticides: Regulating Pesticides, Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of
1996 [Webpage] Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws/fqpa/.
101
21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii).
102
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Public Law 104-170.
103
Groth III, E., Benbrook, C., Benbrook, K. and Goldberg, A.J. (2001, February). A report card for the EPA: Success and failures in
implementing the Food Quality Protection Act. Consumers Union of the United States. Retrieved from http://consumersunion.org/
pdf/fqpa/ReportCard_final.pdf. Page 6.
104
Groth III, E., Benbrook, C., Benbrook, K. and Goldberg, A.J. (2001, February). A report card for the EPA: Success and failures in
implementing the Food Quality Protection Act. Consumers Union of the United States. Retrieved from http://consumersunion.org/
pdf/fqpa/ReportCard_final.pdf.
105
Landrigan, P.J. and Benbrook, C.M. (2006). Impacts of the FQPA on children’s exposures to pesticides. Paper presented at AAAS
2006 Annual Meeting: Symposium on Opportunities and Initiatives to Minimize Children’s Exposure to Pesticides. St. Louis, MO.
Pages 14-15.
106
Calvert, G.M., Karnik, J., Mehler, L., Beckman, J., Morrissey, B., Sievert, J., Barrett, R., Lackovic, M., Mabee, L, Schwartz, A.,
Mitchell, Y. and S. Moraga-McHaley. (2008). Acute pesticide poisoning among agricultural workers in the United States, 1998-2005.
97
American Journal of Industrial Medicine 51(12): 883-98. doi:10.1002/ajim.20623.
107
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). Pesticide illness & injury surveillance - NIOSH workplace safety and health
topic. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/.
108
Environmental Protection Agency (2014) 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions. Federal
Register 79(53): 15444-15531. Pages 15450-15451.
109
Environmental Protection Agency (2014) 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions. Federal
Register 79(53): 15444-15531. Page 15450.
110
Environmental Protection Agency (2011, January 8) Methyl Bromide Questions & Answers [Webpage] Available online at http://
www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/qa.html.
111
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service. (2014, March 13) Strawberry growers test methyl bromide
alternatives [Webpage] Available online at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/ar/archive/jan01/straw0101.htm?pf=1.
112
Environmental Protection Agency (2014, August 5) The phaseout of methyl bromide [Webpage] Available online at http://www.epa.
gov/ozone/mbr/.
113
Environmental Protection Agency (July 31, 2014) Final Rule. Protection of stratospheric ozone: a 2014 and 2015 critical use
exemption from the phaseout of methyl bromide. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0065.
114
Gemmill, A., Gunier, R.B., Bradman, A., Eskenazi, B. and K.G. Harley. (2013). Residential proximity to methyl bromide use
and birth outcomes in an agricultural population in California. Environmental Health Perspectives 121(6): 737-743. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1289/ehp.1205682.
115
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011, July 15) Illness associated with exposure to methyl bromide — fumigated
produce — California 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 60(27): 923-926.
116
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.) Documentation for immediately dangerous to life or health concentrations,
Methyl Bromide [Webpage] Available online at http://www.cdc.::gov/niosh/idlh/74839.html.
117
Barry, K. H., Koutros, S., Lubin, J. H., Coble, J. B., Barone-Adesi, F., Freeman, L. E. B., ... & Alavanja, M. C. (2012). Methyl bromide
exposure and cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study. Cancer Causes & Control 23(6): 807-818.
118
Budnik, L.T., Kloth, S., Velasco-Garrido, M. and Baur, X. (2012) Prostate cancer and toxicity from critical use exemptions of
methyl bromide: Environmental protection helps protect against human health risks. Environmental Health 11:5. doi:10.1186/1476069X-11-5.
119
Cockburn, M., Mills, P., Zhang, X., Zadnick, J., Goldberg, D., & Ritz, B. (2011). Prostate cancer and ambient pesticide exposure in
agriculturally intensive areas in California. American journal of epidemiology, 173(11): 1280-1288.
120
Budnik, L.T., Kloth, S., Velasco-Garrido, M. and Baur, X. (2012) Prostate cancer and toxicity from critical use exemptions of
methyl bromide: Environmental protection helps protect against human health risks. Environmental Health 11:5. doi:10.1186/1476069X-11-5.
52 Pesticide Report March 2015
121
Gemmill, A., Gunier, R.B., Bradman, A., Eskenazi, B. and K.G. Harley. (2013). Residential proximity to methyl bromide use
and birth outcomes in an agricultural population in California. Environmental Health Perspectives 121(6): 737-743. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1289/ehp.1205682.
122
Starks, S.E., Gerr, F., Kamel, F., Lynch, C.F., Alavanja, M.C., Sandler, D.P. and Hoppin, J.A. (2012) High pesticide exposure
events and central nervous system function among pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health 85(5): 505-515.
123
Payne, K., Andreotti, G., Bell, E., Blair, A., Coble, J. and Alavanja, M. (2012). Determinants of high pesticide exposure events in the
agricultural health cohort study from enrollment (1993-1997) through phase II (1999-2003). Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health
18(3):167-179.
124
Alavanja, M. C., Sandler, D. P., Lynch, C. F., Knott, C., Lubin, J. H., Tarone, R., ... & Blair, A. (2005). Cancer incidence in the
agricultural health study. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 31(suppl. 1): 39-45.
125
Koutros, S., Beane Freeman, L.E., Lubin, J.H., Heltshe, S.L., Andreotti, G., Barry, K.H., DellaValle, C.T., Hoppin, J.A., Sandler, D.P.,
Lynch, C.F., Blair, A. and Alavanja, M.C. (2013). Risk of total and aggressive prostate cancer and pesticide use in the Agricultural
Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 177(1): 59-74. doi:10.1093/aje/kws225.
126
Alavanja, M. C., Dosemeci, M., Samanic, C., Lubin, J., Lynch, C. F., Knott, C., ... & Blair, A. (2004). Pesticides and lung cancer risk
in the agricultural health study cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology: 160(9), 876-885.
127
Barry, K. H., Koutros, S., Lubin, J. H., Coble, J. B., Barone-Adesi, F., Freeman, L. E. B., ... & Alavanja, M. C. (2012). Methyl bromide
exposure and cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study. Cancer Causes & Control: 23(6), 807-818.
128
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. (2011). Pesticide industry sales and usage, 2006-2007 market
estimates. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/. Page 14.
129
Lee, W. J., Sandler, D. P., Blair, A., Samanic, C., Cross, A. J., & Alavanja, M. C. (2007). Pesticide use and colorectal cancer risk in
the Agricultural Health Study. International journal of cancer: 121(2), 339-346.
130
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. (2011). Pesticide industry sales and usage, 2006-2007 market
estimates. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/. Page 14.
131
Environmental Protection Agency (2007, September). Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Aldicarb. Retrieved from http://www.
epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/aldicarb_red.pdf.
132
Goldner, W. S., Sandler, D. P., Yu, F., Hoppin, J. A., Kamel, F., & LeVan, T. D. (2010). Pesticide use and thyroid disease among
women in the Agricultural Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology: 171(4), 455-464.
133
Goldner, W. S., Sandler, D. P., Yu, F., Hoppin, J. A., Kamel, F., & LeVan, T. D. (2010). Pesticide use and thyroid disease among
women in the Agricultural Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology: 171(4), 455-464.
134
Goldner, W. S., Sandler, D. P., Yu, F., Shostrom, V., Hoppin, J. A., Kamel, F., and LeVan, T. D. (2013). Hypothyroidism and pesticide
use among male private pesticide applicators in the agricultural health study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
55(10): 1171-8.
135
U.S. Department of Labor (n.d.). OSHA law & regulations [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/law-regs.html. Last
accessed on February 13, 2015.
136
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 29, Part 1910 - Occupational Safety and Health Standards.
137
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 29, Part 1928 - Occupations Safety and Health Standards for Agriculture. 29 CFR 1928.110(c)
(4)(v).
138
U.S. Department of Labor (2007, July 16). Letter from Richard Fairfax, Director, Directorate of Enforcement Programs at OSHA
to Mr. Michael J. Frenzel, Associated Safety Consultants, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_
document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25803. Last accessed on February 13, 2015.
139
Environmental Protection Agency (2014). 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions.
Federal Register 79(53): 15444-15531. Page 15451.
140
Environmental Protection Agency (2014). 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions.
Federal Register 79(53): 15444-15531. Page 15446.
141
Environmental Protection Agency (2014) 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions. Federal
Register 79(53): 15444-15531. Page 15447.
142
Environmental Protection Agency (2014) 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions. Federal
Register 79(53): 15444-15531. Page 15451.
143
Farmworker Justice. (2013) Exposed and ignored: How pesticides are endangering our nation’s farmworkers. Available online
at http://www.farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/aExposed%20and%20Ignored%20by%20Farmworker%20Justice%20
singles%20compressed.pdf. Last accessed on February 10, 2015.
144
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000, September 29) Pesticide registration notice 2000-9, Notice to manufacturers,
producers, formulators and pesticide registrants of pesticide products. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr2000-9.
pdf. Last accessed on February 28, 2015.
145
Environmental Protection Agency (2014) 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions. Federal
Register 79(53): 15444-15531.
146
Environmental Protection Agency (2014) 40 CFR Part 170. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standards Revisions. Federal
Register 79(53): 15444-15531. Page 15449.
147
Coronado, G.D., Holte, S., Vigoren, E., Griffith, W.C., Faustman, E., and B. Thompson. (2011). Organophosphate pesticide
exposure and residential proximity to nearby fields: evidence of the drift pathway. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine 53(8): 884-891. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e318222f03a.
148
Guillette, E.A., Meza, M.M., Aquilar, M.G., Soto, A.D. and I.E. Garcia. (1998). An anthropological approach to the evaluation of
preschool children exposed to pesticides in Mexico. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(6): 347-353.
149
Gemmill, A., Gunier, R.B., Bradman, A., Eskenazi, B. and K.G. Harley. (2013). Residential proximity to methyl bromide use
and birth outcomes in an agricultural population in California. Environmental Health Perspectives 121(6): 737-743. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1289/ehp.1205682.
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 53
150
Marks, A.R., Harley, K., Bradman, A., Kogut, K., Barr, D.B., Johnson, C., Calderon, N. and B. Eskenazi. (2010). Organophosphate
Pesticide Exposure and Attention in Young Mexican-American Children. Environmental Health Perspectives 118(12):1768-1774.
doi:10.1289/ehp.1002056.
151
Bouchard, M. F., Chevrier, J., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., Vedar, M., Calderon, N., Trujillo, C., Johnson, C., Bradman, A., Barr, D.B.
and B. Eskenazi. (2011). Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 119(8), 1189–1195. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003185.
152
Bouchard, M. F., Chevrier, J., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., Vedar, M., Calderon, N., Trujillo, C., Johnson, C., Bradman, A., Barr, D.B.
and B. Eskenazi. (2011). Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 119(8), 1189–1195. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003185.
153
Lanphear, B. P., Hornung, R., Khoury, J., Yolton, K., Baghurst, P., Bellinger, D. C., … Roberts, R. (2005). Low-Level Environmental
Lead Exposure and Children’s Intellectual Function: An International Pooled Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7),
894–899. doi:10.1289/ehp.7688.
154
Shelton, J.F., Geraghty, E.M., Tancredi, D.J., Delwiche, L.D., Schmidt, R.J., Ritz, B., Hansen, R.L. and I. Hertz-Picciotto. (2014).
Neurodevelopmental disorders and prenatal residential proximity to agricultural pesticides: the CHARGE study. Environmental Health
Perspectives 122(10): 1103-9. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307044.
155
Parron, T., Requena, M., Hernandez, A.F. and R. Alarcon. (2011). Association between environmental exposure to pesticide and
neurodegenerative diseases. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 256(3): 379-85. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2011.05.006.
156
Baltazar, M.T., Dinis-Oliviera, R.J., de Lourdes Bastos, M., Tsatsakis, A.M., Duarte, J.A. and F. Carvalho. (2014). Pesticides
exposure as etiological factors of Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases-A mechanistic approach. Toxicology
Letters S0378-4274(14): 00059-9. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2014.01.039.
157
London, L., Beseler, C., Bouchard, M. F., Bellinger, D. C., Colosio, C., Grandjean, P., … Stallones, L. (2012). Neurobehavioural and
neurodevelopmental effects of pesticide exposures. Neurotoxicology, 33(4), 887–896. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2012.01.004.
158
Hayden, K.M., Norton, M.C., Darcey, D., Osbye, T., Zandi, P.P., Breitner, J.C.S. and K.A. Welsh-Bohmer. (2010). Occupational
exposure to pesticides increases the risk of incident AD, The Cache County Study. Neurology 74: 1524-1530.
159
Marks, A.R., Harley, K., Bradman, A., Kogut, K., Barr, D.B., Johnson, C., Calderon, N. and B. Eskenazi. (2010). Organophosphate
Pesticide Exposure and Attention in Young Mexican-American Children. Environmental Health Perspectives 118(12):1768-1774.
doi:10.1289/ehp.1002056.
160
Bouchard, M. F., Chevrier, J., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., Vedar, M., Calderon, N., Trujillo, C., Johnson, C., Bradman, A., Barr, D.B.
and B. Eskenazi. (2011). Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 119(8), 1189–1195. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003185.
161
Gemmill, A., Gunier, R.B., Bradman, A., Eskenazi, B. and K.G. Harley. (2013). Residential proximity to methyl bromide use
and birth outcomes in an agricultural population in California. Environmental Health Perspectives 121(6): 737-743. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1289/ehp.1205682.
162
Gemmill, A., Gunier, R.B., Bradman, A., Eskenazi, B. and K.G. Harley. (2013). Residential proximity to methyl bromide use and birth
outcomes in an agricultural population in California. Environmental Health Perspectives 121(6): 737-743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/
ehp.1205682.
163
Bouchard, M. F., Chevrier, J., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., Vedar, M., Calderon, N., Trujillo, C., Johnson, C., Bradman, A., Barr, D.B.
and B. Eskenazi. (2011). Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 119(8), 1189–1195. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003185.
164
Eskenazi, B., Marks, A.R., Bradman, A., Harley, K., Barr, D.B., Johnson, C., Morga, N. and Jewell, N.P. (2007). Organophosphate
pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican-American children. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(5): 792-798.
165
Marks, A.R., Harley, K., Bradman, A., Kogut, K., Barr, D.B., Johnson, C., Calderon, N. and B. Eskenazi. (2010). Organophosphate
Pesticide Exposure and Attention in Young Mexican-American Children. Environmental Health Perspectives 118(12):1768-1774.
doi:10.1289/ehp.1002056.
166
Environmental Protection Agency (2012, July 27). Clothianidin - registration status and related information [Webpage]. Retrieved
from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/clothianidin-registration-status.html.
167
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. (2011). Pesticide industry sales and usage, 2006-2007 market
estimates. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/. Page 14.
168
de Solla, S.R., Palonen, K.E. and P.A. Martin. (2014). Toxicity of pesticides associated with potato production, including soil
fumigants, to snapping turtle eggs (Chelydra serpentina). Environmental Toxicology 33(1): 102-6. doi:10.1002/etc.2393.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management (January 2002). Migratory bird mortality: many humancaused threats afflict our bird populations [Fact sheet].
170
Pimentel, D. (2005). Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States.
169
Environment, Development and Sustainability 7: 229-252. doi:10.1007/s10668-005-7314-2.
171
Davis, J. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2011, July). Pesticide Fate and Transport (a.k.a. Where do pesticides go in the
environment?). Retrieved from http://nctc.fws.gov/resources/course-resources/pesticides/2011Presentations/Tab%202%20
Pesticide%20Fate%20&%20Transport.pdf. Last accessed on February 27, 2015.
172
U.S. Geological Survey. National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Pesticide National Synthesis Project.
Pesticide Use Maps—Atrazine. [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.
php?year=2011&map=ATRAZINE&hilo=L&disp=Atrazine. Last accessed on February 27, 2015.
173
Sass, J.B. and Colangelo, A. (2006). European Union bans atrazine, while the United States negotiates continued use.
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 12(3):260-7.
174
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, January). Pesticides: Reregistration. Atrazine Updates. [Webpage archive.]
Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.htm. Last accessed on February 27, 2015.
175
U.S. Geological Survey. (2006, March). Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992–2001—A Summary. Retrieved
from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3028/. Last accessed on February 27, 2015.
54 Pesticide Report March 2015
176
See, e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009, May). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Retrieved from http://
water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/upload/mcl-2.pdf.
177
Environmental Protection Agency (2012, July 27). Clothianidin - registration status and related information [Webpage]. Retrieved
from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/clothianidin-registration-status.html.
178
Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America. Board on Life Sciences. Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Division of Earth and Life Sciences. National Research Council (2007). Status of Pollinators in North America. Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press.
179
Goulson, D. (2012, February 10). Decline of bees forces China’s apple farmers to pollinate by hand. China Dialogue. Retrieved
from https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5193.
180
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (2013, May 6). Survey of bee losses during winter of 2012/2013
[Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/beelosses/index.htm.
181
Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America. Board on Life Sciences. Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Division of Earth and Life Sciences. National Research Council (2007). Status of Pollinators in North America. Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press. Page 80.
182
Chensheng, L. U., Warchol, K. M. and Callahan, R. A. (2014). Sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees
winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder. Bulletin of Insectology 67(1): 125-130.
183
Henry, M., Beguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J. F., Aupinel, P., ... and Decourtye, A. (2012). A common pesticide decreases
foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science 336(6079): 348-350.
184
Williamson, S. M. and Wright, G. A. (2013). Exposure to multiple cholinergic pesticides impairs olfactory learning and memory in
honeybees. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(10): 1799-1807.
185
Palmer, M. J., Moffat, C., Saranzewa, N., Harvey, J., Wright, G. A. and Connolly, C. N. (2013). Cholinergic pesticides cause
mushroom body neuronal inactivation in honeybees. Nature Communications 4: 1634. doi:10.1038/ncomms2648.
186
Medrzycki, P., Montanari, R., Bortolotti, L., Sabatini, A.G., Maini, S. and Porrini, C. (2003). Effects of imidacloprid administered in
sub-lethal doses on honey bee behaviour. Laboratory tests. Bulletin of Insectology 56(1): 59-62.
187
Whitehorn, P. R., O’Connor, S., Wackers, F. L., and Goulson, D. (2012). Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony
growth and queen production. Science 336(6079): 351-352.
188
Henry, M., Beguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J. F., Aupinel, P., ... and Decourtye, A. (2012). A common pesticide decreases
foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science, 336(6079), 348-350.
189
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008). Imidacloprid Summary Document Registration Review: Initial Docket December
2008. Docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844. Retrieved from http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQOPP-2008-0844.
190
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008). Imidacloprid Summary Document Registration Review: Initial Docket December
2008. Docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844. Retrieved from http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQOPP-2008-0844.
191
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008). Imidacloprid Summary Document Registration Review: Initial Docket December
2008. Docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844. Retrieved from http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQOPP-2008-0844. Page 3.
192
Environmental Protection Agency (2014, October 16). EPA actions to protect pollinators [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www2.
epa.gov/pollinator-protection/epa-actions-protect-pollinators.
193
Henry, M., Beguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J. F., Aupinel, P., ... & Decourtye, A. (2012). A common pesticide decreases
foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science 336(6079): 348-350.
194
Williamson, S. M. and Wright, G. A. (2013). Exposure to multiple cholinergic pesticides impairs olfactory learning and memory in
honeybees. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(10): 1799-1807.
195
Palmer, M. J., Moffat, C., Saranzewa, N., Harvey, J., Wright, G. A., & Connolly, C. N. (2013). Cholinergic pesticides cause
mushroom body neuronal inactivation in honeybees. Nature Communications, 4: 1634.
196
Medrzycki, P., Montanari, R., Bortolotti, L., Sabatini, A.G., Maini, S. and C. Porrini. (2003) Effects of imidacloprid administered in
sub-lethal doses on honey bee behaviour. Laboratory tests. Bulletin of Insectology 56(1): 59-62.
197
Whitehorn, P. R., O’Connor, S., Wackers, F. L., & Goulson, D. (2012). Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth
and queen production. Science, 336(6079), 351-352.
198
Henry, M., Beguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J. F., Aupinel, P., ... & Decourtye, A. (2012). A common pesticide decreases
foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science 336(6079), 348-350.
199
Chensheng, L. U., Warchol, K. M. and Callahan, R. A. (2014). Sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees
winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder. Bulletin of Insectology 67(1): 125-130.
200
European Food Safety Authority. (2013). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active
substance clothianidin. EFSA Journal 11(1):3066-3124. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3066.
201
European Food Safety Authority. (2013). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active
substance imidacloprid. EFSA Journal 11(1):3068-3123. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3068.
202
European Food Safety Authority. (2013). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active
substance thiamethoxam. EFSA Journal 11(1):3067-3135. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3067.
203
European Commission. Regulation (EU) No. 485/2013.
204
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Title 7 U.S.C. Section 136.
205
Benbrook, C. (December 2008). Prevention, not profit, should drive pest management (Rachel Carson Memorial Lecture).
Pesticides News 82: 12-17.
206
International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2015) Agents classified by the IARC Monographs, Volumes 1-111. Retrieved from
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsAlphaOrder.pdf. Last accessed on March 4, 2015. Page 8.
207
Schreinemachers, D.M. (2000) Cancer mortality in four northern wheat-producing states. Environmental Health Perspectives
108(9): 873-881.
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 55
208
Chensheng, L. U., Warchol, K. M. and Callahan, R. A. (2014). Sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees
winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder. Bulletin of Insectology 67(1): 125-130.
209
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (2013, May 6). Survey of bee losses during winter of 2012/2013
[Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/beelosses/index.htm.
210
Pleasants, J.M. and Oberhauser, K.S. (2012) Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch
butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00196.x.
211
Bouchard, M. F., Chevrier, J., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., Vedar, M., Calderon, N., Trujillo, C., Johnson, C., Bradman, A., Barr, D.B.
and B. Eskenazi. (2011). Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 119(8), 1189–1195. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003185.
212
Marks, A.R., Harley, K., Bradman, A., Kogut, K., Barr, D.B., Johnson, C., Calderon, N. and B. Eskenazi. (2010). Organophosphate
Pesticide Exposure and Attention in Young Mexican-American Children. Environmental Health Perspectives 118(12):1768-1774.
doi:10.1289/ehp.1002056.
213
Environmental Protection Agency (2007, April 24) Atrazine, Chemical Summary [Webpage] Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/
teach/chem_summ/Atrazine_summary.pdf. Last accessed on February 18, 2015.
214
de Solla, S.R., Palonen, K.E. and P.A. Martin. (2014). Toxicity of pesticides associated with potato production, including soil
fumigants, to snapping turtle eggs (Chelydra serpentina). Environmental Toxicology 33(1): 102-6. doi:10.1002/etc.2393.
215
Alavanja, M. C., Sandler, D. P., Lynch, C. F., Knott, C., Lubin, J. H., Tarone, R., ... & Blair, A. (2005). Cancer incidence in the
agricultural health study. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 31(suppl. 1): 39-45.
216
Alavanja, M. C., Dosemeci, M., Samanic, C., Lubin, J., Lynch, C. F., Knott, C., ... & Blair, A. (2004). Pesticides and lung cancer risk
in the agricultural health study cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology: 160(9), 876-885.
217
Barry, K. H., Koutros, S., Lubin, J. H., Coble, J. B., Barone-Adesi, F., Freeman, L. E. B., ... & Alavanja, M. C. (2012). Methyl
bromide exposure and cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study. Cancer Causes & Control: 23(6), 807-818.
218
Goldner, W. S., Sandler, D. P., Yu, F., Shostrom, V., Hoppin, J. A., Kamel, F., and LeVan, T. D. (2013). Hypothyroidism and pesticide
use among male private pesticide applicators in the agricultural health study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
55(10): 1171-8.
219
Starks, S.E., Gerr, F., Kamel, F., Lynch, C.F., Alavanja, M.C., Sandler, D.P. and Hoppin, J.A. (2012) High pesticide exposure
events and central nervous system function among pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health 85(5): 505-515.
220
Payne, K., Andreotti, G., Bell, E., Blair, A., Coble, J. and Alavanja, M. (2012). Determinants of high pesticide exposure events in the
agricultural health cohort study from enrollment (1993-1997) through phase II (1999-2003). Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health
18(3):167-179.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management (January 2002). Migratory bird mortality: many humancaused threats afflict our bird populations [Fact sheet].
222
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). Pesticide illness & injury surveillance - NIOSH workplace safety and health
topic. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/.
223
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 7, Part 205. 7 CFR 205.601(b).
224
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 7, Part 205. 7 CFR 205.601(e).
225
Schneider, M.K., Luscher, M., Jeanneret, P., Arndofer, M., Ammari, Y., Bailey, D., Balazs, K., … and Herzog, F. (2014) Gains
to species diversity in organically farmed fields are not propagated at the farm level. Nature Communications 5. doi:10.1038/
ncomms5151.
226
Lu, C., Toepel, K., Irish, R., Fenske, R.A., Barr, D.B. and R. Bravo. (2006). Organic diets significantly lower children’s dietary
exposure to organophosphorus pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(2): 260-263.
227
Curl, C.L., Beresford, S.A.A., Fenske, R.A., Fitzpatrick, A.L., Chensheng, L., Nettleton, J.A. and Kaufman, J.D. (2015). Estimating
Pesticide Exposure from Dietary Intake and Organic Food Choices: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Environmental
Health Perspectives. Retrieved from http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408197/. doi:10.1289/ehp.1408197.
228
Lu, C., Toepel, K., Irish, R., Fenske, R.A., Barr, D.B. and R. Bravo. (2006). Organic diets significantly lower children’s dietary
exposure to organophosphorus pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(2): 260-263.
229
Bouchard, M.F., Bellinger, D.C., Wright, R.O. and M.G. Weisskopf. (2010). Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary
metabolites of organophosphate pesticides in U.S. children 8-15 years. Pediatrics 125(6): e1270-1277. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-3058.
230
Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). EPA’s regulation of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Crops [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/regofbtcrops.htm.
231
Freese, B., Kimbrell, G., Cohen, S., Kingston, H., Perrone, S., Seiler, A., Stella, C. and Tomaselli, P. (2013). Seed giants vs. US
farmers. Center for Food Safety & Save Our Seeds. Retrieved from http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.
pdf.
232
Monsanto. (n.d). Roundup Ready Plus [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/roundup-readyplus.aspx.
233
Benbrook, C. M. (2012). Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US—the first sixteen years. Environmental
Sciences Europe, 24(1): 1-13.
234
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. (2011). Pesticide industry sales and usage, 2006-2007 market
estimates. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/. Page 14.
235
Union of Concerned Scientists (December 2013). The rise of superweeds, and what to do about it. Retrieved from www.ucsusa.
org/superweeds.
236
VanGessel, M.J. (2001) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Science 49: 703-705.
237
International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. (n.d.). Weeds resistant to the herbicide glyphosate [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.weedscience.org/summary/home.aspx.
238
International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. (n.d.). Weeds resistant to the herbicide glyphosate [Data file]. Retrieved from
221
56 Pesticide Report March 2015
http://www.weedscience.org/summary/home.aspx.
239
U.S. Geological Survey (no date) National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Pesticide National Synthesis Project.
Pesticide Use Maps—Glyphosate. [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.
php?year=2011&map=GLYPHOSATE&hilo=L&disp=Glyphosate. Last accessed on February 27, 2015.
240
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013, May). Glyphosate; Pesticide Tolerances. 78 FR 25396. Retrieved from https://www.
federalregister.gov/articles/2013/05/01/2013-10316/glyphosate-pesticide-tolerances. Last accessed on February 27, 2015.
241
Bohn, T., Cuhra, M., Traavik, T., Sanden, M., Fagan, J. and Primicerio, R. (2014) Compositional differences in soybeans
on the market: glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chemistry 153: 205-217. doi:10.1016/j.
foodchem.2013.12.054.
242
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014, December). Pesticide Data Program. Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2013 [Data file].
Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5110007. Last accessed on February 26, 2015.
243
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2013) Dow AgroSciences petitions (09-233-01p, 09-349-01p, and 11-234-01p) for determinations
of non regulated status for 2,4-D-resistant corn and soybeans. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Available online at http://
www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/24d_deis.pdf. Page 135.
244
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014, September 22). Dow AgroSciences LLC: Determination of no regulated status of herbicide
resistant corn and soybeans. Docket No. APHIS-2013-0042. Federal Register 79(183): 56555-56557.
245
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, November). Registration of Enlist Duo. [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.
gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-enlist-duo. Last accessed on February 27, 2015.
246
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. As amended through public law 109-97, Nov 10, 2005. Title XXI of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990.
247
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. As amended through public law 109-97, Nov 10, 2005. Title XXI of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990.
248
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 205 - National Organic Program. 7 CFR 205.206(e).
249
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. (2012, May) Are healthy foods really more expensive? It depends on
how you measure the price. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/600474/eib96_1_.pdf. Last accessed on March 4, 2015.
250
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012, January) Raw produce, selecting and serving it safely [Webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/UCM174142.pdf. Last accessed on March 12, 2015.
251
Chauhan, R., Kumari, B. and Rana, M.K. (2014) Effect of fruit and vegetable processing on reduction of synthetic pyrethroid
residues. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 229: 89-110. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-03777-6_5.
252
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012, January) Raw produce, selecting and serving it safely [Webpage]. Retrieved from
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/UCM174142.pdf. Last accessed on March 12, 2015.
253
Chauhan, R., Kumari, B. and Rana, M.K. (2014) Effect of fruit and vegetable processing on reduction of synthetic pyrethroid
residues. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 229: 89-110. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-03777-6_5.
254
Szeto, S.Y., Mackenzie, J.R. and Brown, M.J. (1984) Disappearance of dimethoate, methamidophos and pirimicarb in lettuce.
Journal of Environmental Science and Health B. 19(2): 225-235.
255
Yoshida, S., Murata, H. and Imaida, M. (1992) Distribution of pesticide residues in vegetables and fruits and removal by washing.
Nippon Nogeikagaku Kaishi 66(6): 1007-1011.
CONSUMER REPORTS Food Safety and Sustainability Center 57
For more information, please contact:
Jen Shecter
Director, External Relations,
(914) 378-2402, [email protected]
greenerchoices.org
Printed on 100% recycled paper using non-toxic inks and renewable wind-powered energy.

Download Report

Pesticide Report 2015

Paperzz.com

Your Paperzz